(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Historic Structure Report: Administrative, Historical and Architectural Data Sections: Seawall, Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Maryland"

•22ft*l'Fl1* 



Clemson University 



3 1604 



historic structure report 

9 700 816 ministrative, historical and architectural data sections 



PUBLIC DOCUME,: 
P D£POSaORY ITEM 

NOV 1? V986 

CLEMSOK 
yBRAKt 



SEAWALL 

FORT McHENRY 




NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE / MARYLAND 



I 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 



http://archive.org/details/historicstructurOObrow 



HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 
Administrative, Historical and Architectural Data Sections 

Seawall 



FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE 

Maryland 



Prepared by 

Sharon A. Brown 

and 

Susan Long 



August 1986 



U.S. Department of the Interior / National Park Service 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Administrative Data 



Administrative Data 3 

A. Location of Structure 3 

B. Significance of Structure 3 

C. Proposed Treatment of Structure and Justification for 
Treatment 4 

D. Cooperative Agreements 4 



Historical Data 

Preface 7 

Introduction 9 

II. Construction History of Fort McHenry Seawall 11 

A. The Seawall is Needed and Built 1794-1829 11 

1. Fort on Whetstone Point 11 

2. "the ground being undermined" 12 

B. Second Stage Estimates, Construction and Repair 1830-1869 19 

1. Requests to Extend Seawall 19 

2. The Wall is Built 20 

3. Damage and Repair 24 

4. Further Requests to Extend Seawall 25 

C. Interim Repair and Change 1876-1893 28 

1. Damage and Repair 28 

2. Dry Dock and Landfill 40 

3. Health Concerns 43 

4. Threat to Seawall from Miners 45 

D. Third Stage Construction 1894-1897 48 

1 . Requests to Protect Cemetery and South Front 48 

2. Building Seawall Behind Cemetery 51 

3. Building Seawall on South Front 53 

4. Requests to Extend Seawall on Northwest Front 55 

5. Building Seawall on Northwest Front 56 

E. Twentieth Century Damage and Repair 60 

1 . Changes under the War Department 60 

2. National Park Service Ownership 62 

Chronology 67 

Recommendations for Further Research 79 

Illustrations 81 



Appendices 139 

Appendix A: Building a Sea=Wall, Contract, August 1896 140 

Appendix B: Daily Journal of Operations on Fort McHenry, 1896 149 

Annotated Bibliography 155 

Persons Consulted During Research 159 



Architectural Data 

III. Existing Conditions 163 

A. Historic Conditions 163 

B. Existing Conditions 163 

C. Present Conditions 163 

Proposed Work Program 165 

A. Alternative "A" - No treatment 165 

B. Alternative "B" - Pump grout the wall 165 

C. Alternative "C" - Place riprap in front of the wall 165 

D. Alternative "D" - Preferred alternative 165 

E. Multiphase Work Program 166 
1 . Phase 1 166 

2. Phase 2 166 

3. Phase 3 166 

F. Impact Analysis 167 

G. Estimates 169 

Illustrations 173 

Appendix A: Archeological Investigations and Comments 197 

Individuals and Offices Consulted 207 



ILLUSTRATIONS 



Historical Data 



1. Plan of Fort McHenry 1803 

2. HABS map of Fort McHenry 1814 

3. William Tell Poussin Plan and Profile of Fort McHenry 1819 

4. Historical Base Map of Fort McHenry 1819 (1942) 

5. Fort McHenry 1834 

6. Fort McHenry 1836 

7. Plan of Exterior Barbette Battery of Fort McHenry 1870 

8. 1870 Exterior Barbette Battery, Detail 

9. 1878 map of proposed boundary change 

10. 1870 map showing encroachment of high waterline and location of 
proposed seawall 

11. 1870 seawall proposal, Detail 

12. Plan of Fort McHenry 1888 

13. Sketch to show proposed change of wharf at Fort McHenry 1893 

14. Fort McHenry, Maryland 1912 

15. 1910 postcard showing seawall 

16. 1920 postcard showing seawall 

17. General Hospital No. 2, Fort McHenry, Maryland. Seawall 1919 

18. Seawall 1919, Detail 

19. Aerial view, General Hospital, No. 2, c. 1925 

20. Repairs — seawall , sidewalk, etc., damaged by storm, August 23, 1933 

21. 1933 seawall repair, Detail 

22. Fort McHenry National Park stone walls, 1937 

23. Photograph of 1938 pointing on seawall 

24. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage 

25. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage 

26. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage 

27. Photograph of August 1955 seawall damage from hurricane "Connie" 

28. Photograph of August 1955 seawall damage from hurricane "Connie" 

29. Detail of 1974 riprap protection for the seawall proposal 



Architectural Data 



Figures 

1. Soil flushed out from behind wall and resulting void 

2. Capstone displaced and toppled into harbor 

3. Section of wall if protrusion is the historic configuration 

4. Lower third of wall displaced due to force created by water and 
plastic soil behind wall 

5. Rehabilitated wall section (typ.) 



Photographs 

1. Station 11 + 97.05 looking south capstones displaced due to loss of soil 

2. Detail of void behind wall 

3. Displaced capstone toppled into harbor 

4. Station 13 + 17.05--Station 13 and 84.05. Unraveled section of wall 

5. Station 18 + 00. Protruding lower third of wall 

6. Station 16 + 39.04 looking south. Protruding lower third of wall 

7. Station 18 + 00 looking south. Protruding lower third of wall 



HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Administrative Data 

Seawall 



FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE 

Maryland 



Prepared by 
Susan Long 



I . ADMINISTRATIVE DATA 

A. Location of Structure 

Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine is located 
in the Northwest (Inner) Harbor on Locust Point (historically known as 
Whetstone Point) approximately 2-1/2 miles from downtown Baltimore. The 
park is surrounded on three sides by Northwest (Inner) Harbor and 
middle branch of the Patapsco River. The seawall is located on the 
perimeter of the park protecting the park land from erosion by these 
rivers. 

B . Significance of Structure 

Fort McHenry first became a public park belonging to the City 
of Baltimore in 1914. In 1925 Congress enacted a law (43 Stat. 1109) 
providing for the restoration of Fort McHenry and its preservation as a 
national park and a national memorial shrine. 

In 1933 Fort McHenry National Park was transferred from the 
War Department to the Department of the Interior. In 1939 its 
designation was changed from Fort McHenry National Park to Fort 
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine. The seawall at Fort 
McHenry was built in sections beginning in 1816 and finished in 1895. It 
was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966 and is 
included in the List of Classified Structures. It has been assigned to 
Management Category B, "structures that should be preserved and 
maintained . " 

In addition the seawall should be preserved because it is 
needed to secure the site. The location of the park on Locust Point in 
the Northeast (Inner) Harbor makes it susceptible to severe wave wash 
from northerly and southerly storms and large swells caused by vessels 
entering and leaving the habor. Thus in addition to its historic value 
the seawall must be maintained to protect the park from erosion caused by 
wave action . 



1 . National Park Service, Cultural Resource Management Guideline , 
NPS-28, Appendix H, p. 4. 



C . Proposed Treatment of Structure and Justification for Treatment 
In accordance with Management Policies of the National Park 

Service 

A historic structure shall be preserved in its existing form on 
the basis of the following criteria: 

1. The structure, upon acquisition, already possesses 
the integrity and authenticity required. . . 

The seawall should be preserved both to retain its historic integrity and 
so that it may continue its historic and necessary function of securing the 
site. 

D. Cooperative Agreements 

There are no cooperative agreements pertaining to the seawall, 
however, there are three easements that pertain to the seawall. They are 
as follows: 

1. In 1913 the War Department issued a permit to the U. S. 
Coast Guard for use and access a 20 square foot portion of 
land on which to construct a light and fog tower for Fort 
McHenry channel. 

2. The War Department granted an easement in 1925 to the 
Mayor and City Council of Baltimore for a right-of-way 
through the park to install, operate, and maintain electric 
lines. These lines are submarine cables and cross under 
the seawall . 

3. In 1947 an easement was granted to the Mayor and City 
Council of Baltimore by the Department of the Interior to 
install, maintain, and service two subterranean water 
mains, both of which cross under the seawall. 



HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Historical Data 

Seawall 



FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE 

Maryland 



Prepared by 
Sharon A. Brown 



"Of course now I feel like a nurse who, though at times fatigued with her 
cares dislikes to give up her patient before he is cured--And then, you 
know, one gets fond of what one has been caring for a long time--that is 
the way I feel about Ft. McHenry." 



Major Loomis L. Langdon to "My Dear Colonel" 
William Craighill 
May 3, 1885 



PREFACE 



Fort McHenry was built 1794-1802 on Whetstone Point as a defense for the 
city of Baltimore, Maryland. Named for Secretary of War James McHenry, 
the fort's historic significance stems from its 25-hour bombardment by the 
British on September 13-14, 1814, during the War of 1812. Suffering 
only minor casualties, the American forces under Major George Armistead 
held the fort; Baltimore was saved and the British withdrew. 

Lawyer Francis Scott Key, onboard an American vessel in Chesapeake Bay 
arranging for a prisoner's release, observed the bombardment. Upon 
seeing the American flag still waving over the fort after the attack, Key 
was moved to write a poem, "The Star Spangled Banner." Key's words, 
later set to a British tune, became the United States' National Anthem in 
1931. 

No more fighting occurred at the fort after 1814 but it remained a coastal 
defense installation. The fort's later uses included serving as a Union 
prison during the Civil War, as an immigration station, and as a World 
War I Army hospital. The War Department administered the fort as a 
park after 1925, before turning the site over to the National Park Service 
in 1933. 

Fort McHenry's seawall, built in stages after 1816, has protected 
Whetstone Point (Locust Point) from the ravages of weather and tide for 
169 years. Located on the park's perimeter the seawall has performed its 
task well, but through the years it suffered damage from storms and 
hurricanes. Both the Army and the National Park Service have 
continually repaired the seawall, realizing the protection it provides the 
fort. Without this protection, Whetstone Point would be significantly 
altered or indeed, washed away. 



INTRODUCTION 



Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine was transferred to 
the National Park System on August 10, 1933. The site is located in 
Baltimore, Maryland, three miles from the center of town on East Fort 
Avenue. The Northwest (Inner) Harbor and middle branch of the 
Patapsco River surround the fort on three sides. Fort McHenry is a 
National Landmark and is listed in the National Register of Historic 
Places. 

This historic structure report has been prepared to satisfy the research 
needs as stated in the task directive approved by Mid-Atlantic Regional 
Director James W. Coleman Jr., on May 27, 1983. Data from this report 
will be used to plan the preservation of the seawall at the park. 
Emphasis in research and writing was placed solely on specific 
construction data relating to the seawall. The report is not a detailed 
history of Fort McHenry as other National Park Service publications and 
secondary source writings have addressed that topic. 

Most of the author's research was conducted in the Historical and 
Archeological Research Project (HARP) files, compiled from original 
sources in 1957-1958. Arranged chronologically and by subject matter, 
the 264 binders contain a wealth of information concerning Fort McHenry 
from pre-1776 to 1958. Additional data to 1984 has been compiled in 
binders by the park staff. The HARP collection consists not only of 
photocopied materials in the binders, but maps and microfilm as well. 
Limitations to efficient use of the HARP files occur because no useable 
index exists, cross-references are not complete, and not all of the 
material on the microfilm was copied for the binders. Additionally, 
citations referring to the original sources, located in National Archives 
record groups or elsewhere, are not always decipherable. Information 
gaps also exist for spans of years. However, less documentation does not 
necessarily mean no work was done on the seawall. 



Time and money constraints limited research to the HARP files. These 
HARP files provided sufficient data for a construction history of the 
seawall. Research for the historical data section was conducted during 
two field trips to Baltimore in January and February 1985. 

The author would like to thank ex-Superintendent Juin Crosse-Barnes and 
the exceptionally helpful staff at Fort McHenry. Park Technician Scott 
Sheads provided an orientation to the HARP files and research assistance. 
Chief of Visitor Services Terry DiMatteo and Park Ranger Bill Justice 
provided additional research assistance. John McGarry lent his Fort 
McHenry postcard collection and William Stokinger offered valuable ideas 
concerning the seawall's construction. Supervisory Historian Ronald W. 
Johnson provided counsel throughout the project. Beverly Ritchey and 
Nancy Arwood typed the manuscript. 



Sharon A. Brown 



10 



II . CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF FORT MCHENRY SEAWALL 
A. A Seawall is Needed and Built 1794-1829 
1 . Fort on Whetstone Point 

The United States Congress passed legislation authorizing 
the construction of a fort on Whetstone Point in 1794 after the French 
Revolution. Fortifications consisting of an upper and lower battery with 
18 cannon existed as early as 1776 on the point, as well as a fort by 
1777, but these were supplanted by new works designed by French 
artillery officer Major John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi. This officer rebuilt the 
batteries and built a masonry fort, but the work proceeded very slowly 
throughout 1794 to 1798. The rate of construction increased in 1798 and 
in the next year another French engineer, Jean Foncin, developed new 
plans for the Baltimore fortifications. The extant fort, completed by 
1802, is the result of Foncin's ideas and was built over remnants of the 
old star fort. (See illustration 1 for plan of Fort McHenry in 1803.) 

Further construction of defenses occurred after the War of 
1812 was declared. These defenses included among other things brick 
traverses or walls which were built in front of the fort's gateway and the 
magazine. Fort McHenry's moment of glory in history came on 

September 13 and 14, 1814, when its garrison withstood a British 

2 

bombardment lasting 25 hours. However, no seawall survived this 

bombardment and shared in the fort's victory because no seawall had yet 
been built. (See illustration 2 for HABS map showing Fort McHenry in 
1814.) 



1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Historic 
Structure Report, Fort McHenry, Historical and Architectural Data, Fort 
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine Maryland," by Erwin N. 
Thompson and Robert D. Newcomb, Denver, October 1974, pp. 9-16; 
Harold Kanarek, The Mid-Atlantic Engineers : A History of the Baltimore 
District , LJ.S^ Army Corps of Engineers , 1774-1974 , (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, (1979?), pp. 2-3. 

2. Thompson, HSR, pp. 20-21, 26. 



I I 



2. "the ground being undermined " 

As early as 1794 John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi commented on 

the damage being done to Whetstone Point by the waters of Patapsco 

River. In a letter to Maryland Governor Thomas Sin Lee on April 13 

Rivardi wrote that the fort's "Salient angle B is intirely [sic] destroy'd, 

the ground being undermined altogether by the water for the space of 

eleven Perches and one half so that there is no possibility of making the 

3 
old work serve without the addition of a very expensive dam." Rivardi's 

solution to the problem was to move back the salient angle on the point so 

there was enough ground for gun platforms and "sufficient slope from the 

outside of the battery to the water, including a Berme to prevent the 

4 
ground from falling down." 

The War Department did not undertake the construction of 
a wall until years later. The next known mention of the need for a wall 
appears in May 1814. Major George Armistead, the fort's commander 
during the subsequent bombardment in September, measured the distance 
for a stone wall to be built in front of the lower or water battery. After 
considering the quantity of stone needed, prices, labor and workmen 
required, Armistead arrived at a cost estimate of $15,800. He also 
thought funds could be saved by employing "Soldiers, and men under 
sentence of Genl Court Martial." Armistead was prompted to make the 
construction request because "the last N.E. storm has injured it [the 
battery] materially." 



3. "Plan of Fort McHenry," Maryland Historical Magazine 8 (1913): 287. 
A perch is any defined unit of measurement. A salient angle is the 
projecting angle formed by two faces of a bastion. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Historical and Archeological Research Project (HARP), National 
Archives (NA), Record Group-107 (RG), SW, LR, Major George Armistead 
to General John Armstrong, May 14, 1814. 



12 



The Army took no action on Armistead's request. Two 
years later the problem and what to do about it was still being pondered. 
On September 6, 1816, Chief Engineer Brigadier General Joseph G. Swift 
asked Army Engineer Colonel Walker K. Armistead (George Armistead's 
brother) to "examine the matter immediately" and to report what "kind of 
quantum of Wall that would secure the point," as well as how much stone 
was needed for a wall to enclose the site. 

Lieutenant Thomas W. Maurice examined the "breech made 
by the tides and weather on the point" and reported to Colonel Walker 
Armistead that "a part of old fort Wetstone" had been washed away. In 
Maurice's opinion the site required a stone wall four feet thick with a one 
and a half foot foundation and six feet in height. The quantity of 
building materials needed was: 

Agreeable to instructions received 
1900 Perches stone $3 pr P 
1100 bushels lime 50 cts B 
2,700 do Sand 1.50 per ton 

In my opinion should be 

2,500 Perches stone $3 pr P 
1,000 bushels lime 50 cts 
2,700 do Sand 1.50 

General Swift responded to Lieutenant Maurice's estimate 
by writing both Armistead brothers on November 15. Swift complained to 
Walker Armistead that Maurice did not include "the price of Labour & 
Materials" even "in a place where so much Stone & Brick Work is done as 
in Baltimore." He suggested to Armistead that the labor be "done by 



6. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 
1800-1819, J.G. Swift to Col. W.K. Armistead, September 6, 1816. 

7. HARP, NA, RG-77, Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE), Reports, 
July 1812 - October 1823, I, Thos. W. Maurice to Col. W.K. Armistead, 
November 6, 1816. 



is 



o 

Fatigues from your Brothers Command." Swift requested $4,000 be 

remitted to George Armistead for the construction of both the seawall and 

boundary wall, and told the fort's commander, "Your Brother will direct 

the work you have undertaken." Evidently the work had already been 

started because Swift complained, "It would have been better that I 

should have been advised of the nature & extent of the Work before it 

g 
was commenced." 

Swift wrote Acting Secretary of War George Graham on the 
same day, apprising him of the cost of both walls, "probably" costing 
$11,000. George Armistead was to attend to the work under the direction 

of his engineer brother. Funds totaling $4,000 were to be remitted to 

10 
Armistead "immediately." In early December Swift wrote Graham again, 

11 
telling him the "work has been commenced. ..." 

General Swift inspected the work in April 1817. He saw 
the evident effect of the water upon the point and concluded "nothing but 
a Sea wall can preserve it from being swept away." He then directed 
that George Armistead "complete the wall in a substantial manner, its 
length will be about 600 yards. ..." The estimated cost was $1,300 and 
Armistead was to receive an initial remittance of $9,100 for completing the 
seawall and brick enclosing wall, repairing the gun platforms, and 



8. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 
1800-1819, "Your Obt. hum. St." to Col. W.K. Armistead, November 15, 
1816. The soldiers would receive an extra 15 cents per day or an "extra 
gill" for working on the fortifications. A gill measured 1/4 pint of liquid, 
presumably liquor. 

9. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 
1800-1819, "Your Obt. hum. Svt." to Lt. Col. Geo. Armistead, 
November 15, 1816. 

10. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 
1800-1819, "Your most obedient & very humble Servant" to Geo. Graham 
Esquire, November 15, 1816. 

11. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 
1800-1819, Joseph G. Swift B.G. to to George Graham, December 4, 1816. 



I A 



sodding. The troops were still employed to perform as much of the work 

12 
as practicable. 



In December 1817 George Armistead reported to General 
Swift the brick boundary wall's completion and that the wall's gate needed 
only "a finish on the top of the Arch. ..." Armistead also commented 
on the seawall: 



One thousand four hundred sixty feet of the Sea wall, with 
foundation of three feet below the surface and raising generally 
about four feet above the surface and varying from four feet to 
six in thickness, with counterforts four [?] hundred & Seventy 
feet more will complete it and form a lasting barrier to the 
point. 

As vague as George Armistead's statement is, no other reference to the 
seawall's possible completion at this time was found. Citations in the next 
year refer to the need for further protection of the point and completion 
of work started by George Armistead--work which most likely included 
further efforts on the seawall. In January 1818 General Swift informed 
Secretary of War John C. Calhoun of his orders to Armistead to "finish 
the wall" commenced under Swift's directions "to secure the site of Fort 
McHenry from the Effect of the tide. ..." By June 1818 Major Jacob 

Hindman, who followed George Armistead as Fort McHenry's commanding 
officer, received instructions to "complete the works" begun by 
Armistead . 



12. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, Reports, July 1812-October 1823, I, J.G. 
Swift to George Graham, April 10, 1817; Ibid., J.G. Swift to Col. G. 
Armistead, April 10, 1817. 

13. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, G. Armistead to 
Genl J.G. Swift, December 31, 1817. 

14. HARP, NA, RG-77, Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 
1800-1819, Inclo. 759, J.G. Swift B. Genl. to John C. Calhoun Esquire, 
January 9, 1818. 

15. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, C. Vandeventer to 
Col. Jacob Hindman, June 25, 1818. 



15 



The only description of any further work was found in a 
letter Hindman wrote to Walker Armistead. A severe storm on the "4th or 
5th" of December had not damaged the seawall. Hindman attributed this 
to the seawall's strength which "consists of the Solid back we very 
Fortunately gave it after it was raised to its Intended height. We have 
filled in with Earth &c So that I think no rain will effect it." Coping was 
still needed, a project the commanding officer wanted to commence the 
following spring. The dimensions of stone Hindman needed for "this 
purpose its permanent Security" was not less than "Eight Inches thick 2 
feet in width, I doubt that in lenght [sic]." Hindman would have to 
obtain the stone by contract and he hoped to pay less than $.37 per foot. 
Hired laborers are mentioned here for the first time as Hindman 
discharged them and planned to continue the work occasionally through 

the winter with soldiers. He also requested $2,000 for the coping 

v 16 
work. 

Armistead was "pleased" with Hindman's report of the 
seawall and he hoped "it may continue to resist the effects of the Storms 
and Waves." As for the coping, however, Armistead wondered if it would 
be better to use granite instead of free stone for its durability, lower 
price, and easy procurement from "the Susquehannah . " Hindman received 
the desired $2,000. 17 

No further mention of the wall appears until September 
1819 when Jacob Hindman proposed a further extension of the seawall. 
However, Lieutenant J. L. Smith recommended that the wall, to be 
extended "from the point where the wall now building was commenced to 
the wharf," not be undertaken at the present time. Writing to Colonel 
Walker Armistead, Smith stated that an extension of the seawall could be 
dispensed with without hazard to the site. Smith thought the "situation" 



16. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, Jb Hindman to "Sir" 
[Walker Armistead], December 15, 1818. 

17. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, SPLOE, 1812-69, W.K. Armistead 
Lieut. Col. Com. Engineers to Col. J. Hindman, December 21, 1818. 



16 



was sheltered by the point and that a "bank forming 30 or 60 feet from 
the shore" afforded a good protection. The secretary of war, who had 
no objection to Hindman's request to complete the "wall now under 

operation," nevertheless wanted to limit expenditures at the fort. 

1 8 
Hindman would be notified if a change in this status occurred. 

In November 1819 Colonel Walker Armistead reported to 
Acting Secretary of War Major C. Vandeventer that all repairs at Fort 

McHenry commenced under George Armistead's direction and continued 

19 

under Jacob Hindman had been discontinued. An 1819 plan and profile 

map of Fort McHenry, drawn by William Tell Poussin, clearly delineates 
the seawall. It extended from Fort McHenry's southern property 
boundary to the upper battery. Evidence can be seen of counterfort 
construction, or buttresses on the back side of the seawall. (See 
illustration 3 for Poussin 1819 plan. Illustration 4 is a 1942 historical 
base map of Fort McHenry in 1819.) 

Only one reference in the next decade was found to the 
seawall, this being a proposal by Fort McHenry's commanding officer, 
Major M.M. Payne, to add second stories to the quarters with "bricks" 

obtained from "the old seawall in front of this work, or from old Fort 

20 
Covington, without cost to the Government. ..." The exact meaning 

of this phrase is not clear. All of the documentary evidence suggests a 

dry laid wall construction of stone. Topped with a capstone, the seawall 

stood as a complete unit and could resist the river's erosion. Perhaps 

the first seawall construction was of brick and was, at some later period, 

relaid as a stone wall. 



18. HARP, microfilm reel 24, J.L. Smith, Lt Corps of Engrs, 
September 15, 1819; HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, J.L. 
Smith to Col. Armistead, Chief Engr, September 21, 1819. 

19. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, Reports, July 1812-October 1823, I, Col. 
W.K. Armistead to Major C. Vandeventer acting Secy. of War, 
November 30, 1819. 

20. HARP, NA, RG-92, Office of the Quartermaster General (OQMG), 
Consolidated File, M.M. Payne, Major US Arty to Major Genl T.S. Jesup, 
Qr Mst Genl, June 1, 1829. 



17 



Only archeological investigation behind the seawall could 
answer this construction question. Investigation could also possibly 
identify the type and quantity of fill placed in back of the seawall which 
could be related to hydrological drainage problems the fort's structures 
are currently experiencing. Remnants of an older brick seawall located 
behind the present stone seawall could possibly be contributing to the 
drainage problems. 

The scattered references to the seawall in the 1810s and 
1820s imply that construction of the seawall began at least by November 
1816 and was completed sometime in 1818. No sooner was this wall on the 
northeasterly face of the site's waterfront completed when the need was 
seen to extend the wall farther to the northwest. A shortage of funds 
precluded this immediate action, and subsequent construction did not 
occur until the late 1830s. George Armistead, Walker Armistead, and 
Jacob Hindman were responsible for the seawall's first stage of 
construction — a section which bore the brunt of the northeasterly storms. 



18 



B . Second Stage Estimates/ Construction and Repair 1830-1869 
1 . Requests to Extend Seawall 

Fort McHenry experienced extensive repair and 
construction in the mid- to late 1830s. Not only were new fortifications 
built, but requests to extend the seawall increased as did the realization 
that the size of the Federal Government's holdings on Whetstone Point 
needed to be enlarged. 

Fort McHenry's commanding officer, Major Payne, submitted 

an estimate in 1830 for funds required to complete the seawall, but his 

1 
request was denied because of insufficient funds. Eleven years had 

passed since Jacob Hindman asked for the seawall's extension yet the 

reason for refusal remained the same. Further seawall construction 

occurred only when combined with general fort improvements and the 

purchase of more acreage on the point. 

The boundary of the government's ground did not extend 
much farther than the limits of the fort. According to several engineers 
in 1831, if an enemy siege was laid the "feebleness" of the fort and the 
low nature of the ground would restrict any resistance of an attack. 
Adjacent tall buildings on private land having a command of the grounds 
would be kept a farther distance away if more land were purchased, 
thereby reducing the capacity to "reduce" the fort with "the fire of 
musketry." A recommended new boundary was a straight line across the 
neck of the point, "distant from the N.W. Salient of the Fort, 300 
yards." Private land within the proposal totaled 25 acres which could be 
purchased for $10,000. 2 

Years passed before Fort McHenry enlarged its boundaries. 
Captain Henry A. Thompson, the fort's project engineer informed Chief 



1. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, M.M. Payne to Genl 
Gratiot, Engineer Dept., May [?] 8, 1830; HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LS, 
182-1872, C. Gratiot to Major M.M. Payne. 

2. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-1575, J.L. Totten, Engs Brevet Col 
and A. Mordecai, Lt Engrs to Gratiot, July 13, 1831. 



19 



Engineer Charles Gratiot on September 6, 1836, of his purchase of 12 

acres at $1,000 per acre. Thompson had yet to buy two other lots 

farther west. The boundary was moved about 320 yards from the fort 

3 
walls. Two months later the purchases amounted to 17 1/2 acres, with 

"8 or 10 more" being required. Land purchases in 1836 and 1837 finally 

totaled about 28 acres. The extension of the seawall was necessary to 

4 
enclose this extra property now belonging to the government. 



This enlargement of property occurred in conjunction with 

a major construction program at the fort. By August 1836 the troops 

temporarily left the site so construction could proceed without 

5 
interference. The fort was turned over to the Engineer Department. 

(See illustration 6 for 1836 map of proposed work, including land 

measurements. ) 

2. The Wall Is Built 

Further construction of the seawall proceeded under this 
flurry of activity. Thompson informed Gratiot on November 10 that the 
portion of the seawall needing completion "on the North East part of the 
Point, on which the Fort stands" would be finished by the "latter end of 
January next." Thompson contracted for the necessary stone which was 
to be delivered by December 15. Thompson also recommended that the 
seawall "be continued to the extremity of the new purchase." He 
estimated the cost at $10,000. Five days later Thompson sent Gratiot an 



3. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-2716, H.A. Thompson to Br. Gen. 
Gratiot, September 6, 1836. 

4. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-2766. H.A. Thompson to Gen. 
Gratiot, November 10, 1836. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, S-1028, Hy. 
A. Thompson to "My dear Captain," March 2, 1840. 

5. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE Orderly Books, R. Jones Adj. Genl, S. 
Order Sr [?] 70, August 29, 1836. See Thompson, HSR, pp. 39-52 for a 
history of construction at the fort from 1833-1839. 

6. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-2766, H.A. Thompson to Gen. 
Gratiot, November 10, 1836. 



20 



estimate for repairs at Fort McHenry which included "the estimated 
expense of building a Sea Wall to the new purchase" for $10,000. 



An 1834 map of Fort McHenry reveals that the seawall had 
been extended at sometime from the site of the upper battery to the 
property boundary line by the wharf. (See illustration 5 for 1834 Fort 
McHenry map.) No documentary evidence of this construction was found. 
Perhaps the same information Thompson supplied Gratiot can be 
interpreted to mean that the work needing completion on the seawall at 
the "North East" part of the point consisted of continued work to extend 
the seawall from the battery to the boundary. Perhaps the work required 
two years to complete. Thompson then got the money to extend the 
seawall (as well as build a new brick boundary wall) to the new purchase 
boundary and the work began in 1836. 

Captain Thompson offered the following description of the 
work's progress to Chief Engineer Gratiot in October 1837: 



The Sea wall of Granite from the Susquehannah, has been built 
to the extent of 1300 ft exclusive of the Coping about 600 ft 
remains to be finished on the North Side, & about 1000 ft on 
the South side of the Peninsula in which the Fort Stands. 
These walls I conceive very necessary, & when joined by the 
Brick Wall now under construction across the Peninsula, all the 
public lands will be completely & firmly enclosed. 

Thompson also submitted the following estimate for the work: 



For 2000 perches of Stone to finish the Sea 

Wall to the Land recently purchased 5000.00 

9 

For the Coping to the Same 2880.00 



7. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC , FT-MC, 1811-37, H.A. Thompson to 
Genl. Gratiot, November 15, 1836. 

8. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, H.A. Thompson to 
Genl. Gratiot, October 24, 1837. 

9. HARP, microfilm reel 16, H.A. Thompson to Gen. Gratiot, 
October 24, 1837. 



21 



Near the end of the year Thompson informed Gratiot of the 
work remaining to be done on the seawall: "The Stone Wall about 1700 
feet remaining to be built, & the Coping Stone laid on about 1200 feet." 
Thompson expected to finish the work at the fort by September 30, 1838, 
and that "this place" would be ready for occupation at that time. This 
goal was not reached. 

The seawall work did not go as planned because 
"operations" did not commence until August 1 on the seawall, and only 
"small progress" had been made by October 29, 1838. Thompson informed 
Chief Engineer Gratiot that when the wall was finished its length would 
be 2111 feet, and he described the work accomplished during the past 
year: 

on this [wall] there were laid this season 830 feet of Coping 
Stone & 150 feet of the wall built--950 feet have been 
completed , 1550 feet of wall, four feet & an [sic] half high, 
have been built, exclusive of the foundation, which varies from 
eighteen inches to two feet deep; thus leaving but 561 feet to 
be built, of which the foundation has been laid this summer 
except about 50 feet. 

Several days later Captain Thompson submitted a report on 
the year's work. He exclaimed, "My sea wall is completed except 600 feet 



the foundations of which is laid--& then shall have about 1000 ft if coping 

12 
to put on which has been delivered." The end of the year "Report of 

the Secretary of War" for 1838 stated that the seawall at Fort McHenry 

had been "cc 

1/2 feet high 



had been "completed to a length of 950 feet, and 1,550 feet more are 4 
M 13 



10. HARP, NA, RG-107, OCE, SC, FT-MC, 1811-37, H.A. Thompson to 
Gen. Gratiot, December 16, 1837. 

11. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-140, H.A. Thompson to Genl. 
Gratiot, October 29, 1838. 

12. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-140, H.A. Thompson to Capt. 
Smith, October 31, 1838. 

13. HARP, House Doc. No. 2, 25th Congress, 3d Session, December 4, 
1838, "Report of the Secretary of War," p. 155. 



22 



Captain Thompson's report on operations at Fort McHenry 

for 1840 contained only a brief statement on the seawall work: "The 

14 
remaining part of the Sea Wall about 560 feet has also been finished." 



In March 1840 Captain Thompson reported that the seawall, 
which had been started October 1, 1836, was worked on intermittently 
until August 1839. "This wall commences at the N.E. point of the 
Property & runs to the Boundary Wall." The granite for the seawall cost 
$9,074.82. Very little lime was used, "not exceeding $50 worth or about 
120 bushels," and to the best of Thompson's recollection, not more than 
30 bushels of cement was used "To the Sea Wall--the rest was used to the 
revetments & Concrete mixture for foundations Say for Sea Wall $75." Of 

the $8,009.67 spent on the stone mason's work at the fort, all but $500 

15 
went for "cutting & laying the Stone for the Sea Wall." 

The second phase of the seawall's completion was finished 
by 1839. Unfortunately the references to the seawall in these army 
records do not clearly identify which section of the seawall was being 
repaired or built. Captain Thompson's confusing references further 
hinder attempts to pinpoint construction sites. Thus the records do not 
reveal exactly where the seawall began or ended during any given year. 
But it is possible to conclude that the seawall was extended from the 
battery to the old boundary c. 1834 and that the new section of seawall, 
built 1836-1839, extended from the northeast point of the old boundary 
line to the new brick boundary wall on the northwest corner of the 
government property. A seawall on the south side of the property would 
not be built for nearly 60 years. 



14. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, T-294, H.A. Thompson to Col. 
Totten, Chief Engineer, October 17, 1839. The chief engineer's postion 
was now filled by Joseph G. Totten. 

15. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, S-1028, HY. A. Thompson to "My dear 
Captain" [Smith], March 2, 1840; HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, S-1028 
"Memorandum of expenses at Fort McHenry" [Henry Thompson J, [April 
18401. 



23 



3. Damage and Repair 

No sooner was the seawall completed when it suffered 
damage in a storm--one of many through the years. A "gale from the 
North and East which continued with violence" over the evening of 
August 24, 1842, did "considerable injury to the seawall around the 
Fort." Commanding Officer Captain J.M. Washington also reported the 
public wharf had been washed away, but that the garrison recovered 
several timbers. He urged repairs be commenced with "the least possible 
delay." 16 

Repairs to the wharf and seawall were estimated to cost 
$250. An engineer from Washington was sent to examine the extent of 
damage. Lieutenant J.H. Trapier provided the following instructions for 
the repair work: "The prostrate portions of the wall are of course to be 
carefully relaid, and any single stones that have been recovered to be 

returned to their proper positions all which you are fully competent to do 

17 
in the best manner." 

Lieutenant Trapier submitted the following estimate for 
repairs of the seawall: 



Masonry $ 40.00 

Labour 80.00 

Hire of Horses & Carts 12.50 

Cement 7.00 

Transportation of engr. officer to 

& from the Fort 20.00 

Contingencies 5.50 r 

Amount required $165.00 



16. HARP, NA, RG-92, OQMG, Consolidated File, J.M. Washington to 
Brig. Genl. R. Jones, August 25, 1842. 

17. HARP, NA, RG-92, OQMG, Consolidated File, Capt. S.B. 
Dusenberry to Genl Thos S. Jesup, August 29, 1842; HARP, NA, RWD, 
RG-77, OCE, SPLOE, 1812-69, Jos. G. Totten to Lt. J.H. Trapier, 
September 5, 1842. 

18. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Trapier to Col. J.G. 
Totten, September 11, 1842. 



24 



The repairs to the seawall were finished by 

19 
September 28. 



4. Further Requests to Extend Seawall 

The seawall protected the north and east sides of the 
military site but the south side, even though less vulnerable to storms 
and waves, still suffered erosion. Requests to extend the wall on the 
south side began as early as 1837 and continued after the north section 
was completed. In January 1845 Lieutenant Pierre G.T. Beauregard of 
the Corps of Engineers in Washington received directions "in relation to a 

Sea Wall for the protection of the Hospital position, and also in relation to 

20 
some works contemplated for the protection of the shore. ..." 

Twelve years later Lieutenant Colonel Lorenzon Thomas 
inspected Fort McHenry and made the following observation: 

The Sea Wall has never been completed so as to secure the 
entire water fronts of the public grounds. It extends along the 
entire north side, round the east corner, and on the South side 
to a short distance west of the fort, but from this point to the 
west wall separating the public grounds from private property 
there is nothing to prevent the cutting away of the bank by 
the action of the waves--the heavy rains have made large 
gullies in this part of the public grounds whicj^ are increasing 
in extent! The wall should be completed. . . . 

Plans and cost estimates were made in February 1858 to 
grade the drill ground and complete the wall. Fort • McHenry's 
commanding officer, Major William H. French, informed the secretary of 



19. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Trapier to Totten, 
October 11 , 1842. 

20. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, SPLOE, 1812-69, ? to Lt P. G.T. 
Beauregard, January 7, 1845. Half of this letter is virtually 
undecipherable and the other half is missing from HARP. 

21. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, "Extract from the 
report of an inspection Made of Fort McHenry Md . November 28th, 1857 
by Lieut. Colonel L. Thomas, Asst. Adjt. General." 



25 



war of the need for the work and estimated that grading the ground 

would cost from $600 to $1,000 while "The Sea Wall will be more 

22 
expensive. 

French's request moved through the engineering hierarchy 
as Major Henry Brewerton of the Corps of Engineers submitted two 
alternative estimates on March 15, 1858: one for partial grading of the 
ground without finishing the seawall and without any attempt at stopping 
erosion in the bluff on the south side, and a second for grading, 
finishing the seawall and turning the bluff into a grassy slope. The 
second estimate read: 

Seawall, 1026 cub. yds of dry rubble 

masonry at $6 $ 6,156 

Apron for some 380 cub yds of stone 

at $1.50 570 

Excavation, including arrangement in new 

position 15000 cub yds a 20c 3,000 

Grassing 50000, square feet of slope 100 

Contingencies 674 „_ 

$10,500. 

Captain of Engineers Horatio G. Wright submitted Brewerton's estimate to 
Secretary of War John B. Floyd on March 17, 1858. Wright commented, 
"There are, however, no funds applicable to this object and therefore 
nothing can be done until the necessary appropriation shall have been 
made by Congress." If Floyd thought it important to begin the work, 

Wright recommended that he apply to Congress for an appropriation of 

24 
$10,500 as per Major Brewerton's estimate. 



22. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Wm . H. French to 
Colonel S. Cooper, February 9, 1858. 

23. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, Henry Brewerton, 
"Estimate of cost of grading drill ground and building Sea wall at Fort 
McHenry Baltimore Md . " March 15, 1858. 

24. HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LR, 1838-66, H.G. Wright to Hon. 
John B. Floyd, March 17, 1858. 



26 



Either Secretary Floyd did not think the work important or 
Congress did not see fit to appropriate the money, for in November 1862 
in the midst of the Civil War Major Brewerton did not know if an 
appropriation had been made. Writing to Chief Engineer Joseph G. 
Totten, Brewerton referred to a letter written by Fort McHenry's 
commanding officer, Major William W. Morris, to Lieutenant Colonel W.D. 
Whipple of the Corps of Engineers. Morris' letter stated that an 
appropriation had been made and he requested that an engineer be 
directed to complete the seawall. Brewerton asked Totten if an 

appropriation had been made, if the engineer department were responsible 

25 
for the seawall's construction and if so, he wanted instructions. 

No answer to Brewerton's query was found in the HARP 
files, but it is an obvious conclusion from the literature that the wall was 
not built. Reports of repairs conducted at the fort in 1866, 1868, and 
1869 do not mention any seawall construction while later documents 
support construction dates in the 1890s. 

In the next two decades after the Civil War the seawall at 
Fort McHenry received attention in several different ways. Even though 
no new sections of seawall were built, continual storm damage required 
attention. Health and sanitation concerns arose, as did a threat to the 
seawall from mining operations in the Patapsco River. Change occurred 
at the northwest face of the seawall when land fill placed in front of it 
extended the reservation's acreage even further. The post-Civil War 
decades were fairly quiet ones at the fort (with the last major 
construction occurring 1866-1867) and the seawall's history followed suit. 
Repairs held sway, but major construction efforts were still years away. 



25. HARP, NA, RG-77, OCE, LR, B-9359, Hen. Brewerton to Brig. 
Genl. Jos. G. Totten, November 5, 1862. 

26. See: HARP, microfilm reel 49, Wm . P. Craighill to Bvt. Major Genl. 
A. A. Humphreys, December 10 1866; Ibid., J.H. Simpson to Humphreys, 
October 15, 1868; Ibid., Simpson to Humphreys, October 7, 1869. 



27 



C . Interim Repair and Change 1876-1893 
1 . Damage and Repair 

The first mention of seawall damage found in the HARP 
files after 1842 involved Fort McHenry's commanding officer's report of 
damage on September 18, 1876. Lieutenant Colonel William H. French 
reported that a storm the previous day had not only carried away 

two-thirds of the wharf but had damaged the seawall. "The Sea Wall has 

1 
been washed badly in placed beyond the Post Traders." 

Major William P. Craighill of the Baltimore U.S. Engineer 
Office further described the damage: "The storm also shook up badly, 

the south face of the sea wall about the site." Craighill believed repairs 

2 
could be made within the next month. The cost of repairs to the wharf 

and seawall was estimated to be less than $1,000, a sum which was 

promptly allotted. Repairs as extensive as funds would allow were made 

3 
in October and continued through November. 



Conflicting evidence on damage to the seawall was found 
for the year 1878. One report in March stated the seawall "in enough 
places needs repairs, more or less extensive, but these are not 
inoperative, and, would require, a considerable outlay if undertaken." 



1. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Wm . H. French to Major W.P. Craighill, 
September 18, 1876. 

2. HARP, microfilm reel 46, Wm. P. Craighill, "Report of Operations at 
Defenses of Baltimore Harbor, Md . during the month of September 1876," 
October 1, 1876. 

3. HARP, microfilm reel 46, Craighill to Brigadier General A. A. 
Humphreys, October 2, 1876; HARP, microfilm reel 46, "By Command & 
C" to Craighill, October 4, 1876; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Thomas Lincoln 
Casey, Lieut. Col. of Engineers to Craighill, October 4, 1876; HARP, 
microfilm reel 46, Wm. P. Craighill, "Report of Operations at Defenses of 
Baltimore Harbor, Md . during the month of October 1876" November 1, 
1876; HARP, microfilm reel 46, Wm . P. Craighill, "Report of Operations at 
Defenses of Baltimore Harbor, Md . during the month of November 1876," 
Wm. P. Craighill, December 1, 1876; HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report of 
Operations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1877 for Fort McHenry, 
Baltimore Harbor, Md . , " Wm. P. Craighill, [July 1877]. 



28 



Another report, written in July, mentioned only "A trifling encroachment 

4 
upon work by the sea in S.W. front." 



The first observation was probably the more correct 
because in March 1879 William Craighill reported that the seawall "has 
come to be in such a state as to need very extensive repairs, which 

should not be longer deferred." Craighill believed $2,700 was needed to 

5 
make the repairs. One month later Craighill was still asking for the 

money "not exceeding $3,000" and he described the seawall as being "in 

very bad condition." Craighill reported again in May that "Extensive 

repairs to sea-wall and elsewhere are needed and will be begun if funds 

can be had for expenditure in June." 



Money was finally appropriated and reparation of the 
seawall began in June 1879. Craighill thought the repairs were 
"essential" to protect the seawall from further damage and to stop erosion 
of the glacis by the sea washing through breaches in the seawall. He 
described the breaches and repairs: 



The two (2) worst of these, --looking due seaward — aggregating 
400 ft in length, have been built up anew from foundations to 
coping, and the line of wall from "Artillery Stables", S. West 
angle round to "Sutler's Store" on East face--the part of wall 
most directly exposed to the seas--besides equal to 892 ft. of 
wall has been repaired thoroughly. 

The plan of repair adopted, has been to level up the top course 
proper in wall, set on this the large coping stone, in hydraulic 
cement, grout in their joints, and connect them by heavy iron 
clamps, let in and counter sunk, in top of stones. 



4. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Jas. W. Cuyler to Craighill, March 14, 
1878; HARP, NA, RG-159, OIG, LR, 1866-1887; Richard Arnold Major 5th 
Arty to Asst. Adjt Genl. Dept of the East, July 15, 1878. 

5. HARP, microfilm reel 35, Craighill to Acting Chief of Engineers, 
March 31, 1879. 

6. HARP, microfilm reel 35, Craighill to Chief of Engineers, April 22, 
1879; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for May 1879," Wm. 
P. Craighill, May 31 , 1879. 



29 



Nearly all this work, --practically amounting to rebuilding, that 
h wall--has been accomplished during the month, since the 
9th inst. 

55 pieces of granite coping-stone 23 cub yds 
61 Tons, have been received 

New Coping, 4' Wide & 9" Thick T. in Ft. 
Set in wall 180 

Total length of Wall, reset 7 

and repaired 1292 

In July Craighill reported that the seawall, "which had 

been in bad repair for several years," had two breaches totaling 400 feet 

in length made by storms during the winter of 1878-1879. The breaches 

were repaired during the past month of June and, additionally, "892 lineal 

feet of wall" from the artillery stalls to the sutler's store were repaired 

o 
and recoped. In July, 50 feet of wall near the sutler's store received 

new coping; work which had not been completed at the end of June. 

Craighill also recommended that the seawall be repaired for the rest of its 

9 
length, which extended about 1,200 feet. 



More repairs were undertaken almost two years later. In 
April and May 1881 Craighill reported the following work completed: 



200 yards of coping of seawall, lineal (about) 
removed and relaid and underpinned to a greater 
or less extent. 

22 yards, lineal, of coping of seawall removed, 
relaid, and from one foot in height to one foot 
six inches of wall rebuilt under it. 



7. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for June 1879," Wm. 
P. Craighill, July 1, 1879. 

8. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1879 for Fort McHenry Baltimore Harbor, Md . " Wm. P. 
Craighill, July 1, 1879. 

9. HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 1878-86, "Defenses of 
Baltimore, Md . "Report of Operations for July 1879," Wm . P. Craighill, 
August I, 1879; HARP, microfilm reel 53, Capt. Jas. W. Cuyler to 

10, 1879. 



30 



132 lineal yards of coping on sea wall underpinned. 
59 lineal feet of the sea wall taken down and 
rebuilt (57 cubic yards). . . . 

70.5 of coping were removed from the front where the 
area is being filled in [near new water battery] and 
used to replace coping broken or washed away of that 
portion repaired. 

Men from Fort McHenry's garrison assisted in the work. 
The fort's animals hauled sod, coping and the fill, composed of brickbats 

and stone, used "to back up the portions of the walls where the sea had 

11 
washed out the earth. ..." A month-and-a-half later the brickbats 

and stone placed behind the seawall made "a somewhat rough appearing 

job." Smoothing over and leveling these sites would require 50 cart loads 

12 
of ground, according to an estimate, costing $25.00 at $.50 per load. 



In mid-June 1881 Lieutenant Colonel Craighill received 
permission to contract for $600 to be used for repairs to the seawall or 

otherwise. It is not known if he used these funds for the work just 

13 
completed or for prospective repairs not mentioned in HARP. 

Major Loomis Langdon noted in May 1885 that the seawall 
needed repairing in front of the center of the water battery. He 
remarked, "One can detect it by the top moving as you step on it," and 
he offered a description of the damage: 



10. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Thomas Turtle to Craighill, April 2, 1881; 
HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report for April 1881," Wm. P. Craighill, 
May 2, 1881; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR 1878-86, "Defences 
of Baltimore, Md . Report of Operations for May 1881," Wm. P. Craighill, 
June 1, 1881 . 

11. HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 1878-86, "Defences of 
Baltimore, Md . Report of Operations for May 1881." Wm. P. Craighill, 
June 1, 1881. 

12. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Thomas Turtle to Craighill, July 12, 1881. 

13. HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LS, 1881-88, [George N.] Eliot 
to Craighill, June 23, 1881. 



31 



Leaning over and looking down one can see the lower third of 
the wall bulging out. It has settled there and the water, 
surface drainage has probably undermined it. Base [?] maybe 
a quick sand there--the place that needs repairing is about 15 
yards long--or if not quite that long at least about 15 yards of 
the wall should be taken down (or up) to get at the 
foundation . 

Langdon thought $300 was enough for the work, "but to be sure I would 

15 
say $400--and to do it well—sinking a foundation in a trench." 



In January 1886 another "severe gale" injured the seawall, 
"that portion looking toward Fort Carroll. ..." Two years later even 
more damage occurred in June when the south end of the unfinished 
water battery's parapet loosened and slid, nearly throwing the seawall 
into the water. In reporting the incident in June 1888, Fort McHenry's 
commanding officer Lieutenant Colonel L. L. Livingston remarked that the 
seawall needed repair in several places and that the slide damage should 

be repaired soon to prevent "fishing for stone from the water & loosing a 

1 fi 
mass of earth. ..." (See illustrations 7 and 8 for map and detail of 

the lower battery parapet plan, 1870.) 

Albert Mott of the Corps of Engineers offered the following 
description of the damage and needed repair after inspecting the site of 
the landslide with Colonel Livingston: 



About one hundred feet in length of the slope of the south end 
of the unfinished battery has slipped and pressed the sea wall 
out of line about three feet, and out of plumb about one and 
one half feet. The slip is the worst that has happened since 
the battery was constructed. The earth behind the wall even 
down to the foundation of it has apparently moved the wall out 



14. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Colonel," [received at 
U.S. Eng'r Office, May 19, 1885]. 

15. Ibid. 

16. HARP, microfilm reel 42, E.C. Bainbridge to "My Dear Col" 
[Craighill], January 8, 1886; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 
1878-86, "Report of Operations for January, 1886," Wm. P. Craighill, 
February 2, 1886; HARP, microfilm reel 42, L.L. Livingston to "My dear 
Craighill," June 10, 1888. 



32 



into the harbor bodily. A copious rain would probably cause 
the slope and wall to be farther thrown into the harbor. It is 
now dangerous to pedestrians and Col. Livingston has caused 
signs to be placed near the slip warning people of the danger. 

The location of the slip is the same that has twice or more been 
for want of funds, temporarily repaired by merely filling in at 
the top of previous slips and sodding it over. . . . The 
present slip is also partially due to the insufficiency of funds 
to properly repair the former breaks at the same place. A part 
of it was repaired and re-inforced, by driving piles in the 
foundation and filling in a trench dug at the foot of the slope 
with stone. Funds did not admit of carrying this solid work 
completely through to the south end of the battery, and so 
such foundation was at the site of the present landslide. The 
present slip commences about where the pile and stone 
foundation ended. . . . 

It is almost necessary that the filling in behind the sea wall, 
should be- 7 excavated, and the wall reset on its original 
line. . . . 

-I o 

Mott estimated permanent repairs would cost $2,750. 



Colonel Craighill asked N.H. Hutton of the Corps of 
Engineers to examine the damage in October. At first Hutton thought the 
damage to be the result of soil saturation behind the seawall and he 
proposed sinking two wells behind the terreplain to alleviate the problem. 
He then changed his mind and thought the wall was undermined and had 
fallen, thus causing the bank to slip afterwards, "simply because loss of 
its 'foot hold." 1 Hutton recommended taking out the seawall, putting in a 
new foundation when the seawall was rebuilt, and placing riprap in front 
of it. Hutton's estimate of repair: 

To repair wall & bank will cost about $700 

To put other places in wall in order about $500 q 
for all $1200 



17. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Albert Mott to Craighill, June 15, 1888. 

18. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Albert Mott to Craighill, October 2, 1888. 

19. HARP, microfilm reel 42, N.H. Hutton to Mr. A. Mott, October 4, 
1888; HARP, microfilm reel 42, N. Hutton to "Dear Col" [Craighill], 
October 9, 1888. 



33 



Despite Hutton's lower estimate of repair, the Corps of 

Engineers went with the earlier, higher estimate and allotted $2,750 to 

20 
Colonel Craighill for repair of the seawall and the adjacent parapet. 

Repairs did not begin until the following year. 



Hutton kept Craighill apprised of the seawall's condition 
during the repairs. He found that the "old wall" contained very small 
stones, that the wall was wretchedly built and that more new stone would 
be needed than previously thought. An additional concern was the 
widening of the 27-foot channel off Fort McHenry over the previous two 
years. Deep water was much closer to the seawall than originally 
contemplated. Waves from southeasterly storms formerly expended their 
force on the wide shore in front of the seawall, but were now hitting 

directly against the seawall. This condition resulted in undermining at 

21 
the seawall s base, and displacement of coping stones. 

Hutton then offered a recommendation for protecting the 
seawall : 



The wall is built on flagstone generally simply laid on the 
very hard natural bottom. In order to prevent this 

undermining action, I recommend rip-rapping the most exposed 
front. 

Many coping stones are out of place & underpinning gone 
from others--they should all be firmly bedded, cast in 
cement--as the wall will fail quickly when coping is removed, 
being largely built of very small stones in the back. 



20. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Clinton B. Sears to Craighill, November 8, 
1888. 

21. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 16, 1889; HARP, 
microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 23, 1889. 

22. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 23, 1889. 



34 



Hutton estimated about 300 feet linear of riprap at $1.00 per foot was 

23 
required to protect the seawall. The total estimated cost was $300. 



The Army negotiated a contract with George F. Nardin for 
repairing the seawall on February 21, 1889. His completion date, 
originally scheduled for April 30, 1889, was extended to May 31, 1889, 

due to stormy weather and high tides. The work was delayed through no 

24 
fault of the contractor. 

Continued bad weather forced captain of engineers Thomas 
Turtle to seek another extension for the contractor to June 30, 1889. A 
new storm on May 31 and subsequent rains damaged the seawall and water 
battery slopes even further. According to Captain Turtle: 



The new section of wall seven feet thick by seven feet high has 
moved out bodily about three inches in center. It is proposed 
to rip-rap in front of the sea-wall until a weight to balance the 
pressure at rear is gotten. It is believed to be useless to take 
the sea-wall down and re-build it, unless an expensive 
coffer-dam is built and foundations excavated to a depth of six 
or seven feet. The waJI is perfectly vertical but has moved out 
on a horizontal plane. 

Captain Turtle asked that $911.98 designated for Fort 
Carroll repairs be transferred for the Fort McHenry repairs, and he 
received $1,000. George F. Nardin's contract now needed supplements to 
include the additional work to be completed by June 30, 1889. The new 



23. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Memorandum of Necessary Repairs," 
N.H.H. [Hutton], March 23, 1889. 

24. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Thomas Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, 
April 16, 1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Turtle, May 21, 1889. 

25. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, May 23, 
1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, June 17, 
1889. 

26. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, June 17, 
1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Clinton B. Sears to Turtle, June 21, 1889. 



35 



section of the seawall stopped moving by June 22 and repairs to the 

27 
slopes and seawall were underway by July 19, 1889. 



At this point the historical record becomes confusing 
because no mention of Nardin completing his contract on June 30, 1889, 
was found. In August Colonel Craighill submitted an estimate of $1,986 
to be used that month "in payments on contract for repair of water 

battery and seawall at Fort McHenry, Md . and for repairs to drains to 

28 
the same work in September." ' Perhaps these funds were used to pay 

Nardin's contract. However, references to repairs appear after June 30, 

as seen above, and Nardin signed another contract to repair the seawall 

in October. Perhaps the first contract focused on the initial slip damage 

while the subsequent storm damage of May 31 was repaired under the 

second contract. 

On August 20 N.H. Hutton identified even more problems 
with repairing the seawall. Refilling "dangerous holes" in the seawall 
"near the Low Water line, and East of old Post Traders house," could not 
be done until the fall during low water season. Four hundred dollars 
were needed for these repairs. A few days later Colonel Craighill noted 
that "much of the dry underpinning put in many years ago, needs 

replacement in order to prevent the falling of considerable portions of the 

29 
wall. . . ." 

The seawall was repaired once again under contract in 
1889. The job was advertised on September 24, two bids were received, 
and George F. Nardin's bid was the lowest. Approximately $1,500 was to 



27. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to "Dear Sir" [Turtle], June 22, 
1889; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Turtle to the Chief of Engineers, July 19, 
1889. 

28. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to the Chief of Engineers, 
August 29, 1889. 

29. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 20, 1889; 
Craighill to the Chief of Engineers," August 26, 1889. 



36 



be spent. Once again the record is unclear; no contract completion date 
was found. Furthermore, on October 28, Hutton advised "removing the 
upper half of seawall recently built, at end of exterior battery, and 
rebuilding it in a straight line, merely as a matter of 'looks', the cost 
would not exceed $150. ..." It seems that Hutton's observation 
concerns the bulging seawall and that this work should have been covered 
by Nardin's contract. Obviously the bulging wall was not covered under 
the contract and was not repaired. Perhaps the contract only included 
placing riprap and repairing holes. At the end of November Colonel 
Craighill noted, "Work here is entirely suspended except a small amount 
of repairs to the sea-wall at Fort McHenry which is done by a contractor 
who is paid by the cubic yard, he furnishing all men and materials." 
This implies no major seawall rebuilding occurred. Hutton wrote in 
January 1890 that "Work at Fort McHenry is completed tho' not measured 
yet entirely," and it is probable this work was the seawall repair. In 
April Colonel Craighill had $1,000 left over from Preservation and Repair 
of Fortifications appropriations of September 22, 1888, and March 2, 1889. 
He remarked that repairs of the seawall and water battery parapet cost 
less than estimated. 

Evidently all the repair work was completed; no mention of 
the seawall appears again until June 1892 when Colonel Craighill requested 
funds for placing riprap at the foot of the seawall at the westerly end of 
the exterior water battery. No action was taken, for Craighill still 
sought the money in October, this time urging, "As this work requires 
men to be in the water much of the time, it may be considered an 



30. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to the Chief of Engineers, 
August 29, 1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to The Chief of 
Engineers, October 16, 1889; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to 
Craighill, October 28, 1889; HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, LS, BDO, 
1878-1900, Craighill to Malcolm A. Black, November 30, 1889; HARP, 
microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, January 17, 1890; HARP, microfilm 
reel 56, Craighill to The Chief of Engineers, April 5, 1890. 



37 



emergency and I request authority to proceed with it at once by hiring 

31 
men for the purpose, as the season is advanced." 



Twenty-five dollars was available for "replacing riprap at 
bulge of seawall at Fort McHenry." This statement again confirms that 
the riprap was being replaced and that the bulging wall had not been 
repaired in 1889. Both Craighill and Hutton wanted to get started on the 
work immediately, but they had to wait until a "N.W. wind gives lower 
tides than now prevail." The wait lasted until the following year. 
Because of inclement weather all fall, winter and spring the work had not 
yet been started by April 1893. Craighill thought the work could be 
finished before the end of June. Although no completion reports were 

found, the $25 was still available in June, and it is assumed the riprap 

32 
repairs were completed. 

Another storm on August 28, 1893, destroyed the wharf, 
damaged earthworks and "carried away" extensive sections of the seawall. 
Craighill estimated repairs would cost $2,500. His estimate had to be 

revised upwards in October because another "severe gale" on the 13th did 

33 
even more damage. 

Fort McHenry's commanding officer Major George B. 
Rodney described both the storms and the seawall's condition: 



31. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Brig Gen Thomas Casey, 
June 24, 1892; HARP, microfilm reel 42, John G.D. Knight to Craighill, 
October 6, 1892; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Casey, October 7, 
1892. 

32. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Hutton, October 11, 1892; 
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, October 12, 1892; HARP, 
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, April 12, 1893; HARP, microfilm 
reel 42, John G.D. Knight to Craighill, June 26, 1893. 

33. HARP, microfilm reel 42, R.P. Strong to the Assistant Adjutant 
General, August 30, 1893; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, 
September 7, 1893; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, 
October 20, 1893. 



38 



The sea wall which was badly damaged by the storm of August 
28th was still further damaged and several sections measuring 
from twenty to thirty feet in length have been opened. The 
opening made in the sea wall by the storm of August 28, has 
been increased in dimensions, the opening now measuring about 
seventy five feet in length and is nothing more than an open 
beach. The tide rose some three feet above the sea wall from a 
point near the old wharf on the north side of the reservation, 
around the south side, almost to the cemetery, which was badly 
washed along its water front. If we should have one or two 
more such storms during the coming winter the sea wall for 
over a hundred yards on the south side will be destroyed. 

Colonel Craighill received $2,000 and repairs were 
underway, but by December 7 they were stopped for the winter. In the 

spring of 1894 Craighill placed advertisements in public places inviting 

35 
proposals for building materials needed for the seawall repair. Two 

proposals were accepted on May 15 and 16. George F. Nardin of 

Baltimore County was to supply the following materials: 

300 bus. Clean Sand @ 6 cts per bushel $ 18.00 

100 ft. 4 inch Coping, 3 feet wide @ 

85 cts per foot 85.00 

75 perches Stone, @ $2.85 per perch 176.25 

$279.25 

Delivery of materials was to start on May 21. Craighill also accepted 

the following proposal for materials from Maryland Lime and Cement 
Company of Baltimore: "50 Bbls cement (Anchor Rosedale) @ $1.00 per 
bbl. --Total $55.00. . . ." 37 



34. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Geo. B. Rodney to the Assistant Adjutant 
General, October 20, 1893. 

35. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Knight to Craighill, November 1, 1893; 
HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, December 7, 1893; HARP, 
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, May 3, 1894. 

36. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Geo. F. Nardin, May 15, 1894. 

37. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Maryland Lime & Cement Co., 
May 16, 1894. 



39 



Repairs were started with the $2,000 allotment but by June 

38 
30, 1894, they were suspended for want of funds. No completion date 

for the work was found in HARP. 



Between the years 1876 and 1893 the seawall suffered 
damage time and time again from the stormy weather and high waves. 
Repairs remained crucial for the seawall protected the point and the fort 
from serious washing. On several occasions previous damage was only 
made worse by recurring storms even before repairs could be started. 
The seawall demanded constant reparations throughout its history, as did 
all the fortifications on Whetstone Point. 

2. Dry Dock and Landfill 

In 1878 changes were being discussed for the northwest 
corner of the military reservation — changes which affected the seawall's 
configuration. The Army planned to cede three acres of Fort McHenry 
property to several local citizens for a dry dock. In addition, the 
waterfront adjacent to the ceded tract would be filled to the "Port 
Warden's Line" which would add eight and one half acres to the 
reservation. Deducting the acres for the dry dock, the reservation 
would increase five and one half acres. Since the fill would be ballast 
dumped by ocean steamers the only cost to the Army would be the 
construction of an outer seawall or bulkhead. The issue was brought to 
the secretary of war's attention in 1879, when the chief of engineers 



proposed filling in to the port warden's line, thus extending the drill 
ground, and building a new 
proposed boundary change.) 



39 
ground, and building a new seawall. (See illustration 9 for 1878 map of 



A year later Major William Craighill proposed driving a few 
piles to indicate the dumping limits since the fill would be placed in front 



38. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, June 30, 1894. 

39. HARP, NA, OCE, Land Papers, R.B. Marcy to General E.D. 
Townsend, March 4, 1878; HARP, H.D. 46th Congress, 2d Session, House 
of Representatives, Ex. Doc. 1, Part 2, Vol. 3., 1879-80, "Report of the 
Chief of Engineers," October 20, 1879. 



40 



of the existing seawall. In February 1880 Craighill sought authority to 
receive and pile large quantities of ballast which was constantly arriving 
at the fort and which could be had for no expense. Not only did 

Craighill hope to obtain fill from ballast, but also dredging material from 

40 
the builders of the dry dock. 

By the next month material dredged from the adjacent dry 
dock was being dumped at Fort McHenry. Colonel Craighill reported that 
the dry dock contractors continued dumping "on the site between the 
existing seawall and the prescribed Port Warden's line" through the 
spring, and by April a bulkhead of ballast had been made along a line in 
front of the site and "at a distance from the authorized pier line of 375 
feet." Colonel Craighill also reported that a line had been established in 
"the rear of the site at the same distance from the pier line." Craighill 
proposed "to deposit in the area" ship ballast and other materials dredged 

from the upper part of the Patapsco channel concurrent with channel 

41 
improvements for Baltimore. 

At the end of May 1880 the dry dock contractors stopped 
dumping their excavated materials at the site. By July 1, the dry dock 
was completed and was being used. Colonel Craighill once again 

recommended building a seawall along the line of the temporary 

42 
bulkhead. 



40. HARP, NA, OCE, Land Papers, "List of Papers Herewith" 
February 24, 1880; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, RB, LR, 1878-86, 
Craighill, Maj W.P., February 16, 1880; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, 
FB, LR, 1878-87, Craighill, Major W.P., February 25, 1880. 

41. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for March 1880," Wm. 
P. Craighill, March 31, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of 
Operations for April 1880," Wm. P. Craighill, May 1, 1880. 

42. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for May 1880," Wm. 
P. Craighill, June 1, 1880; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, RB, LR 
1878-86, "Report of Operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880 
for Fort McHenry Baltimore harbor," Major Wm . P. Craighill, June 30, 
1880. Congress had granted permission to an incorporated dry dock 
company to build the dry dock, located on government property. 



• II 



Even though the dry dock was finished and dumping from 
that operation discontinued, ballast was still deposited "in front of the 
site" and material dredged from the Patapsco was dumped "behind the 
site." Dumping in front of the seawall continued through the summer and 
fall of 1880 and into the spring of 1881. By May, the filling process had 
slowed because of a scarcity of vessels coming in to dump ballast. 
Evidently this problem continued for the next several years. In June 
1882 proposals were made to rebuild the wharf, which was in poor 
condition, and to move it next to the works of the Dry Dock Company. 
Colonel Craighill still expected to "fill out solidly to the authorized 
'Bulkhead line' with ballast, and then to construct an abutment and 
timber pier. . . ." 

By mid-1885 the filling was not yet finished. Craighill 
reported little progress had been made because of the few vessels 
depositing ballast. Once again Craighill requested the wharf be removed 

and a new one built near the dry dock, and that a seawall be built along 

44 
the temporary bulkhead line. 

No further references to the filling were found. It is not 
known when the dumping of ballast stopped, but requests to build a new 
seawall in front of the fill continued into the late 1880s and early 1890s. 



43. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for June 1880," 
Craighill, June 1, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations 
for July 1880," Craighill, July 31, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report 
of Operations for August 1880," Craighill, September 1, 1880; HARP, 
microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for September 1880," Craighill, 
October 1, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report of Operations for 
October 1880," Craighill, November 1, 1880; HARP, microfilm reel 35, 
"Report of Operations for November 1880," Craighill, December 1, 1880; 
HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Report for March 1881," Craighill, April 1, 
1881; HARP, NA, OCE, RWD, RG-77, FB, LR, 1878-86, "Report for April 
1881," Craighill, May 2, 1881; HARP, NA, RWD, RG-77, OCE, LS, 
Fortifications, January 1881 - November 1884, Craighill to General Wright, 
June 30, 1882. 

44. HARP, microfilm reel 35, "Annual Report, Fort McHenry." Craighill, 
June 30, 1885. 



42 



3. Health Concerns 

One side effect of the construction on the northwest 
corner of the military reservation was a concern about sanitation. In 
1875 a beach rapidly formed along the seawall from the wharf to the 
seawall's "termination on the west." The post surgeon noted the beach 
was covered by very high tides and was a collector of trash and filth 
from both the harbor and the garrison. In the surgeon's opinion the 
beach neutralized the sanitary benefits of the seawall. He also believed a 

log boom belonging to the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad which encroached 

45 
on the reservation's waterfront assisted in forming the beach. 

Major William Craighill responded to the surgeon's 
concerns. In his estimation the seawall, "built about 40 years ago" had 
served its purpose well. He disagreed that the size of the beach had 
rapidly increased. On the contrary, very little beach existed at all, and 
what did exist was formed by the garrison constantly throwing matter 
over the wall. This served as a "nucleus" for gathering other matter 
moved by "the influence of winds, waves and currents." Beaches were 
constantly increasing and decreasing. In Craighill's estimation, the effect 
of the B & O Railroad's log boom was minimal in terms of forming a beach 
or stagnating the water. No money was available for "changing the 
position of the sea-wall, but it is my opinion that it should someday be 

carried out considerably, for the purpose of giving more room for drilling 

46 
and for buildings." 

Five years passed but the question of sanitation emerged 
again after the filling commenced. In 1880 another surgeon asked what 
effect the filling had on the garrison's health and Craighill again 
responded. He explained that the fill consisted of ship ballast, dry dock 
excavations and oyster shells from packing houses in Baltimore. The 



45. HARP, microfilm reel 46, D. Bache to Post Adjutant, May 31, 1875 

46. HARP, microfilm reel 46, Craighill to Brigadier General A. A 
Humphreys, July 13, 1875. 



43 



work was done carefully, and no matter was placed above the water line 
which could pose a sanitation problem. In Craighill's opinion disagreeable 
odors came not from the fill, but from slop and other matter poured into 
the drains at the soldiers' barracks. 

Craighill did admit the space along the old seawall was out 
of the current and did collect "floating bodies, such as those of dead 
dogs, cats, &c." This situation was made worse since the Dry Dock 
Company made a large filling which cut off the current. But Craighill 

believed the new bulkhead and the filling helped alleviate the problem. 

47 
"The tide ebbs and flows regularly in the enclosed space not filled." 

Further sanitation concerns connected to the seawall 
involved the placement of privies. Several references appear in the 1870s 
and 1880s which mention the problems associated with this type of 
plumbing. Four mens 1 sinks, or privies, were located on the seawall in 

the early 1870s, but they were not "built sufficiently far out to secure 

48 
removal of the excreta by the tide." In January 1885 Lieutenant 

Colonel Loomis L. Langdon discussed engineering work to be done at Fort 

McHenry and mentioned the need for a water closet for the engineer 

workmen. He wanted to have a substantial cesspool built with masonry, 

brick and cement. Langdon's reason for such an expenditure and change 

from past practice reveals a slice of social life at the fort: "I do not like 

to put it [the water closet] on the sea-wall where it stood years ago, for 

49 
that sea-wall is the only promenade the ladies here have left." 



47. HARP, NA, OCE, Land Papers, Craighill to Brig. Genl. H.G. 
Wright, December 22, 1880. 

48. HARP, microfilm reel 45, "Reports of Surgeons J. Simpson and D. 
Bache," circa 1870-1874 [?]. See also pp. 68-69 of Thompson, HSR, for 
references to seawall privies. 

49. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Programme of Engineer Work to be done at 
Fort McHenry, Md prior to the first day of July 1885," Loomis L. 
Langdon, January 29, 1885. 



44 



Not only did the seawall protect the Fort McHenry grounds 
from washing away, 't also protected the fort's garrison from disease by 
keeping washed debris from accumulating on the property. When used 
properly, the privies on the seawall provided as healthful conditions as 
possible at the time because refuse was regularly washed away. 
However, questions were raised concerning possible unsanitary conditions 
generated by the fill in front of the seawall and the proper location of 
the privies. One can only sympathize with the women and men who, 
perhaps on their daily walks, had to make wide berths around offensive 
areas on or next to their "promenade"--the seawall. 

4. Threat to Seawall from Miners 

The seawall suffered more threats than those presented by 
the weather and tides. Some of them were caused by people. In 1873 
Colonel Craighill worried about the "pickers-up of ore" who were 
operating within 30 feet of the seawall. A Mr. Murdock and others 
disregarded regulations keeping them 30 feet away and were at the 
seawall's "very foot." Craighill remarked, "It would serve some of them 
right if the wall would topple over on them." No further identification 

of these ore miners was found. 

Ten years later in May 1883 Craighill learned that iron 
miners in the Patapsco near the seawall were throwing mud and rock 
refuse into the water where they worked. Recently they had come onto 
the fort's grounds and "threw into the water some dirt which the Post 

Trader had excavated in putting up his building and which he had placed 

51 
over the loose bricks piled in rear of the sea wall as a support to it." 

Thomas Turtle inspected the locality where the iron ore miners were 

searching and he advised Craighill, "if the United States has any rights 

in the matter they ought to be asserted, and the sooner the better." So 



50. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Major Genl. W. H. French, 
November 15, 1873. 

51. HARP, microfilm reel 53, H.G. Gibson to Craighill, May 23, 1883. 



45 



far as Turtle could see no injury had yet been done to the defenses or to 

the seawall, but placing even temporary mining structures posed the 

52 
possibility they would be difficult to move or to limit. 



In September 1883 a Charles Wroten applied to mine within 
10 feet of the seawall's face. Thomas Turtle thought this distance was 
too close especially because no depth limit was mentioned. Turtle's 
concerns were based on the seawall's construction: 

A portion of one face of the sea wall is built upon a very 
unstable sand and has already on that account been taken up 
and rebuilt. Such working as Mr. Wroten proposes would in my 
judgement result in the shaking of this foundation again and 
necessitate the rebuilding of that portion of the wall for the 
second time. . . . 

No documentation was found regarding the Army's decision 
in this matter. Regardless, the episodes reveal that iron mining occurred 
in the river within 30 feet, and possibly as close as 10 feet, of the 
seawall, a portion of which stood on unstable sand. The engineers 
recognized the seawall's weaknesses and strove to prevent inadvertent 
damage by the miners. 

Fort McHenry's seawall withstood a relentless battering 
caused by wind and waves. The army engineers' attempts to keep the 
seawall in good repair are worthy of admiration when considering the 
monetary requirements and the accompanying race against time — fixing 
sometimes major damage before another storm engulfed the point. The 
various descriptions of repair reveal the techniques used to fix the 
seawall, the costs involved and materials utilized. The engineers 
sometimes made repairs only for as long as the money lasted. Even 
though many details of the repairs, especially references to location, were 



52. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Thomas Turtle to "Colonel" [Craighill], 
May 29, 1883. 

53. HARP, microfilm reel 53, Turtle to "Colonel" [Craighill], 
September 6, 1883. 



46 



not found in the engineers' writings, a general picture does emerge; one 
of repair as frequent as the change of seasons. But when compared to 

the seemingly endless work required to keep up the fortifications 

54 
themselves the seawall probably did not require any more attention. As 

long as it was kept in good order the seawall performed its task of 

keeping the grounds' perimeter free of debris and encroachments by the 

surrounding water. 



54. See Thompson, HSR, pp. 89-118, 



47 



D. Third Stage Construction 1894-1897 

1 . Requests to Protect Cemetery and South Front 

Requests to extend the seawall on the south side, 

especially in front of the cemetery, occurred throughout the 1870s and 

1880s, often in conjunction with requests for a seawall extension on the 

northwest front to protect the new filled acreage. (See illustrations 10 

and 11 for 1870 proposal to build seawall.) In 1870 an inspection of Fort 

McHenry revealed that the sea was "encroaching on the work" and that a 

seawall was needed to protect it. There is confusion, however, over the 

inspection report the following year. The inspector wrote in April 1871, 

"A new wharf and seawall has been built at this post since my last 

1 
inspection." Because no information was found in HARP detailing any 

seawall construction between 1839 and 1894, the meaning of this remark is 

not known. Perhaps the inspector referred to repairs of the seawall 

which occurred the previous year, even though no mention of seawall 

repair in 1870-1871 was found either. (See Chapter C, section 1.) 

In August 1884 Colonel Loomis Langdon complained that 
bay waters had cut away the bank "where the sea-wall ends, down by the 
bake house, just at the point where I had built a platform, the 200 yard 
firing point." Langdon tried to halt the erosion by throwing ashes, 
collected every morning at the post, on the site, but he admitted to the 
futility of the effort. In his view, "The better plan would be to continue 
the sea-wall all the way around." Langdon thought he could build a few 
yards of the wall with materials stored at the fort. If no wall were 
started, Langdon even suggested "piling in there all that old pile of 
concrete stone that lies in a great pile on the right of the road to the 
Sutler Store." The material would still be available if needed for another 
project, and Langdon would use "ashes and refuse to fill up the holes 



1. HARP, NA, RG-159, OIG, LR, 1866-1889, "Post of Fort McHenry, 
Commanded by Brevet Brig General Horace Brooks, Inspected April 28th, 
1870"; HARP, NA, RG-159, OIG, LR, 1866-1889, "Post of Fort McHenry, 
Md . , Commanded by Colonel Horace Brooks 4th Artillery, Inspected April 
20th, 1871." 



48 



that were made by getting out dirt beyond the cemetery for the Water 

2 
Battery." 



Evidently no action was taken on Langdon's offers for in 
January 1885 he still sought permission to fill in the erosion or build the 
seawall. He wanted the "sea-wall down by the bake-house [to] be 
prolonged northerly." In addition to the material piled alongside the road 
for fill, Langdon suggested using material "consisting of the old sea-wall 
east of the barracks half buried in the sand. ..." Before he would 
begin the work, he would have an exact line laid out by someone from the 



engineer's office. Langdon thought the work a necessity because the sea 
was making "inroads" at the 
bakery and barracks in 1888.) 



3 
was making "inroads" at the site. (See illustration 12 for location of 



Langdon's suggestions concerning the need for a seawall 
on the point's southern side were contained in a program of engineering 
work to be done at the fort and this program was approved. Despite 
this, in May Langdon again requested the work be done. The need for 
the wall, he thought, was not so much for protection from the sea, but 
for protection from the heavy rains washing down the banks. Langdon 
thought it a matter of time before the whole bank washed down. Once 
again, Langdon urged that material from the old seawall buried in the 
ground behind the men's quarters be used for a new seawall. Labor was 
the only expense: $1,680 for 20 laborers at $1.50 per day for 56 days. 

Langdon thought the cost was "A pretty big item--but I think -essential to 

4 
the well being of the place." 



2. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Mr. Mott," 
August 12, 1884. 

3. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Programme of Engineer Work to be done at 
Fort McHenry, Md . prior to the first day of July 1885," Langdon, 
January 29, 1885. 

4. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Colonel," February 1, 
1885; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Langdon to "My Dear Colonel," [received 
at U.S. Eng'r Office, May 19, 1885]. 



49 



Five years passed and estimates for protecting the 

cemetery site were still being developed. One estimate suggested building 

a retaining wall 75 feet long, 10 feet high, four feet wide with a 

5 
foundation one foot below low water at a cost of $470. 



Three years later Fort McHenry's commanding officer, 
Major George B. Rodney, still sought the seawall's extension because a 
storm on October 13, 1893, "washed" the grass at the post cemetery and 
badly exposed some graves. An estimate in December to grade and fill 
ground in the rear of the cemetery and the adjacent slope included 5,000 
cubic yards of earth and shell filling at 50 cents, totaling $2,500. 

Eight months later, in August 1894, engineer N.H. Hutton 
thought the most serious injury to the site requiring immediate attention 
was the front of the cemetery. "At this point, the erosion has been such 
as to expose the contents of the graves." Hutton's estimate for 
protecting the cemetery was: 

To build a protective wall and grade the ground to 
proper slopes for stability will cost $3100 
that is 

150 c.y. rip rap @ $3 1/2 in place $ 525 

150 " dry wall @ $5 " $ 750 

200 ft coping @ $ 1/2 " $ 300 

5000 c.y. excavation & embankment @ 30 $1,500 

Contingencies $ 25 7 

Total $3,100 



5. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Chas. Y. Woodward to Craighill, June 1, 
1890; HARP, microfilm reel 42, [?] to Woodward, June 12, [1890]. 

6. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Maj . Geo. B. Rodney to Craighill, 
November 19, 1893; HARP, microfilm reel 42A , Hutton to Craighill, 
December 6, 1893. 

7. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 13, 1894. 
Hutton also included an estimate to build a seawall along the "whole 
front," 1043 ft. in length. This estimate probably refers to the seawall 
on the northwest front. Hutton provided dimensions but they are also 
probably for the northwest seawall rather than the south front seawall. 
The October 13 storm uncovered the grave of an officer whose remains 
were reburied. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Brig Genl Thomas 
L. Casey, June 30, 1894. 



50 



Mutton's final thought was that "The cemetery should, at all means be 
protected . " 

A little more than a month later an allotment of $3, TOO was 

granted for the work. William Craighill hoped that the construction of a 

section of seawall behind the cemetery would be "the beginning of a wall 

9 
all along the rear." 

2. Building Seawall Behind Cemetery 

The Army engineers went ahead with plans to extend the 
seawall below the cemetery on the south front of the fort's grounds. 
Colonel Craighill had advertisements placed in the Baltimore Sun and Daily 
News October 4, 1894, seeking proposals for building a seawall. The 

bids were opened on October 20; George F. Nardin was chosen as 

10 
contractor and his contract was dated October 25, 1894. 

Problems arose within the month. Fort McHenry 

commander Major George B. Rodney objected to the contractor's use of 
the road and wharf for transporting materials. If Colonel Craighill had 
known this was a problem he would have procured an order from 
Washington but under the circumstances he asked Rodney to allow the 
contractor "repairing the wall behind the cemetery" the use of the road 
and wharf. In view of Rodney's opposition, George Nardin agreed to pay 
one half the cost for any damage done to the wharf or roads occurring 

during work under contract. Any such expense would be deducted from 

11 
money due Nardin as liquidated damages. 



8. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 13, 1894. 

9. HARP, microfilm reel 42, John G.D. Knight to Craighill, 
September 25, 1894; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Rodney, 
October 2, 1894. 

10. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Chief Clerk, War Dept., 
October 4, 1894; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hutton to Casey, October 20, 
1894; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Geo. W. Goethels to Craighill, 
November 13, 1894. 

11. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Rodney, November 15, 1894; 
Geo. F. Nardin to Craighill, November 15, 1894. 



51 



George Nardin began work on November 9 but by 
December 17 he sought an extension of 60 days for the completion of his 
contract. He explained, "The work was delayed for some time by reason 
of high tides preventing me from digging the foundations through the 
hard clay." Engineer Hutton examined Nardin's request and noted the 
contractor had lost 16 work days to the "unusual" high tides of November 
and December. During these months northwest winds usually produced 
low tides, but this year the winds were southerly and southeasterly, 
which produced the high tides. Hutton did not see any advantage to 
having Nardin stop work and resume in the spring because "the liability 
to high tides would then be increased." Two or three days of westerly 

winds would allow Nardin to work above the tide's influence, and Hutton 

12 
recommended the extension of 30 days be granted. 

Craighill granted Nardin a 60-day extension--20 days with 
no expenses deducted for inspection and supervision and 40 days more 
with the expenses of inspection and supervision to be deducted from 
Nardin's payments. The work continued and in December Nardin hauled 

stone from the Falls' Road during good weather. By December 24 all the 

13 
foundation was in and about 80 feet of seawall three feet high built. 

Two months passed and Nardin had placed 150 cubic yards 
of riprap, 100 cubic yards of masonry, and 358 cubic yards of earth 
filling. Evidently the work then stopped for some reason, possibly 
weather, for on March 24 Craighill asked Nardin to resume work on the 
seawall by April 1. Craighill added, "The drain pipe from officer's 



12. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, January 4, 1895; HARP, 
microfilm reel 42, Nardin to Craighill, December 17, 1894; HARP, 
microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, December 18, 1894. 

13. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Nardin, January 2, 1895; 
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to "Dear Sir," [Craighill], December 24, 
1894. 



52 



quarters which was broken last fall, must be repaired by you at the 

14 
earliest opportunity." 



George Nardin completed his contract on May 11, 1895, 
having built 227 feet of seawall below the cemetery. Even as he finished 

his work, plans were underway to extend the seawall along the entire 

15 
south front of the Fort McHenry reservation. 

3. Building Seawall on South Front 

Engineer Hutton proceeded with plans to extend the 
seawall along the entire southern front and he wanted a new drawing of 
the seawall made and specifications developed for prospective bidders. 
When Craighill sent the specifications to the secretary of war he included 
the stipulation that the contractor be responsible for the condition of "all 
wharves, roads, and parts of the ground on reservation" used during the 
work s progress. 

The work was advertised on March 28, 1895, and bids 
opened on April 30. Nine bids were received and Albert Weber won the 
contract, dated May 4. Weber began work but soon suffered the same 
problems which had plagued Nardin. At the end of July Weber sought an 
extension of his contract to August 5, because of extraordinary high 
tides. His request was granted and a new completion date was set for 
September 30, 1895. 17 



14. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, February 19, 1895; 
HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Nardin, March 24, 1895. 

15. HARP, "Report for year ending June 30, 1895," Colonel Peter C. 
Hains, [July 1895] . 

16. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, March 24, 1895; HARP, 
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Rodney, March 28, 1895. 

17. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Casey, April 30, 1895; HARP, 
microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Albert Weber, April 30, 1895; HARP, 
microfilm reel 42, H.M. Adams to Craighill, May 1, 1895; HARP, microfilm 
reel 56, Craighill to Casey, May 7, 1895; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Adams 
to Craighill, May 13, 1895; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Peter C. Hains to 
Craighill, July 31, 1895; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hains to Weber, 
August 5, 1895. 



53 



At mid-September the filling-in behind the new seawall was 
almost completed and bare ground was soon to be covered with "street 
sweepings" or other material for growing grass. The final estimate 
(dated September 20) of Weber's completed work included the following 
materials and costs: 



Total work done: 
Rip-rap foundation: 

794 ft. by 10 ft by 1 ft = 294 c. yds @ $2.24 $ 658.56 

Dry Wall: 

814 ft @ 22 3/4 sq. ft. per foot, or 685.85 c.y. @ $3.62 $2482.77 
Coping 6" x 3 ft in cement 

812 ft @ $1.95 per ft $1583.40 

Earth filling 

4.322 c.y. @ $.25 per yd. $1080.50 

Total value of work done $5085.23 



18 



Albert Weber finished the last section of the seawall by 
September 19, 1895, and completed his contract. Engineer Hutton 
submitted a final estimate of Weber's work to Colonel Peter C. Hains of 
the Corps of Engineers on September 23. This supplement to the 
September 20 estimate included the following work completed since 
August 27: 



95.85 c.y. masonry in Wall @ $3.62 
112 linear ft 6" 36" coping @ $1.95 
36 c.y. rip rap foundations @ $2.24 
3322 c.y. earth filling @ $.25 

or in all 
to which must be added retd : % 
making due him now 
previous payments 
making total as per estimate of 21st 



$ 346.97 
$ 218.40 
$ 80.64 
$ 830.50 
$1476.51 
$1132.87 
$1909.38 
$3895.88 
$5805.23 



19 



18. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Hains, September 14, 1895; 
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to [Engineers Office, Baltimore], 
September 20, 1895. 

19. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Hains, September 20, 1895; 
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Hains, September 23, 1895. Hutton 
submitted the September 20 estimate on the 21st and mentions this in his 
September 23 letter. 



54 



4. Requests to Extend Seawall on Northwest Front 

After the temporary bulkhead was established and land 
filled on the northwest side of the Fort McHenry reservation, site 
commanders continued to request a permanent seawall be built to contain 
the fill. By 1892 the agent of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad wanted to 
place even more ballast fill inside the bulkhead of oyster shells. This 
action would help fill the "disagreeable if not unhealthy quasi-lake" 

existing at the site. The requests for the seawall continued throughout 

20 
the early 1890s. 

In December 1893 engineer Hutton estimated the seawall 
extending "from its present terminus, on the Western face of Reservation, 
to the north boundary wall" would require 2,300 cubic yards of dry stone 



masonry at $6 totalling $7,800 and 1000 feet 6" coping at $1 totaling 
$1,000. 21 (Se 
front in 1893.) 



21 
$1,000. (See illustration 13 for diagram of conditions at northwest 



Eight months later Hutton submitted another estimate to 
Colonel Craighill. In addition to estimating the cost of a retaining wall on 
the south side to protect the cemetery, Hutton offered the following 
figures for a seawall to protect the "whole front," 1043 feet in length: 

600 c.y. rip rap in place @ $3 1/2 $ 2100 

700 " dry wall " " @ $5 $ 3500 

1050 ft. coping @ $1 in place $ 1050 

25000 c.y. excavation & embank @ $25 $ 6250 

Total $12900 

William Craighill reported Hutton's estimate to Chief 
Engineer Thomas L. Casey and remarked that the entire western face of 



20. HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report for year ending June 30, 1889, 
[July 1889?]; HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report for year ending June 30, 
1889," [July 1890?]; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Jas. Gales Ramsey 
Craighill, June 2, 1892; HARP, microfilm reel 56, "Report for year Ending 
June 30, 1892," [July 1892?]. 

21. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, December 6, 1893. 

22. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Craighill, August 13, 1894. 



55 



the property was entirely unprotected from the waters and had suffered 
undermining. Craighill told Casey that 1045 feet of seawall would cost 
$12,900. 23 



The Army took no action until 1895. An estimate was then 
made as to required materials and cost for completing the filling which 
had occurred over the years: 



Sea Wall North Front 

660 ft. linr wall @ $7.50 per foot $ 4,950 

35,000 c. yds. filling @ $.20 $ 7,000 

3000 sq. yds. graded sod @ $.50 $ 1,500 

100 trees @ $3 (planted) $ 300 

Total $13,750 

The fill, sod, and planted trees were needed to "complete an addition to 
the grounds constructed long ago, and now in an unsightly condition on 

the most exposed front of reservation." The trees were needed to screen 

24 
the barracks latrines. Colonel Peter Hains relayed the estimate to Chief 

Engineer William Craighill, who approved it. Hains was to use an 

allotment currently in his hands, as far as it would go, for portions of 

the work. 



5. Building Seawall on Northwest Front 

Colonel Hains received another allotment the next year, in 
July 1896, of $13,750 for the seawall and embankment. Bids were made 
and opened, and the firm of Nardin and Anderson chosen for the work by 
August. (See appendix A for the seawall contract.) Nardin and 
Anderson's contract, dated August 17, 1896, was for "building a sea-wall 
and making repairs at Fort McHenry, Md . " Two rowboats were hired to 



23. HARP, microfilm reel 56, Craighill to Brig. Genl. Thomas L. Casey, 
August 16, 1894. 

24. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hutton to Col. P.G. Hains, September 10, 
1895. 

25. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hains to Craighill, September 14, 1895; 
HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Hains, October 17, 1895. Craighill 
replaced Casey as chief engineer in May 1895. 



56 



assist with the work. In October Nardin and Anderson proposed further 
work on the refill in back of the old seawall, in addition to their contract 
work on the new seawall. The firm offered to remove and replace the soil 
after refilling, plus furnishing and sowing grass seed over the refill at a 
cost of 45 cents per cubic yard. Colonel Hains accepted the offer. 

Work was still underway in December 1896 when the 
contractors broke the sewer pipe "near where it joins the original one 
which carries off the sewerage of the post, also that the original one is 
broken where they took up the stones from the old wall, which has 
caused the flooding of that part of the post." Evidently the task of 
removing the old wall and its associated problems only added to the 
contractors' woes, because Nardin and Anderson asked for an extension 
of their contract in December. Owing to high tides, rain, and "more 
earth than our first understanding," the contractors were unable to finish 
the embankment's top dressing in time. Not knowing how soon they 
would have to stop work because of frost, Nardin and Anderson asked 
that their contract be extended from January 1 to April 1, 1897. Their 
request was granted. 

A year-end financial statement for operations at the fort 
revealed details of the seawall's construction: 



Total Riprap 1846.5 cu yds @ 1.49 $ 2,751.28 

Earth and Shell Fill 29562 cu yds @ 0/24 7,094.88 

Masonry for Sea Wall 410.5 cu yds @ $6.00 2,463.00 

Coping laid 528 linear ft. @ 1.50 792.00 

Total cost of work to Dec. 31st '96 $13,101.16 



26. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Hains, July 1, 1896; HARP, 
microfilm reel 42, Craighill to Hains, August 26, 1896; HARP, microfilm 
reel 42, Hains to Craighill, September 5, 1896; HARP, microfilm reel 56, 
Hains to Nardin & Anderson, October 8, 1896. 

27. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Samuel A. Kephart to Hains, December 13, 
1896; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Nardin & Anderson to Hains, December 18, 
1896; HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hains to Craighill, December 19, 1896; 
HARP, microfilm reel 56, Hains to Nardin & Anderson, December 24, 1896. 



57 



Fill on East of Reservation Wharf 8192 cu yds 

@ 45 $ 3,686.40 

To be paid for to complete Sea Wall 
129.2 lin ft coping @ 1.50 = $193.80 

Total amt Spent to Dec. 31st, 1896 

Sea Wall & Embk. $13,101.16 

Fill East of wharf (RR) 3,686.40 

$16,787.56 



Cost of inspection 384. 75 

Total Cost Spent 17,172.31, 

To complete Coping for fill 20,000.00' 



A handwritten note in HARP contained the following 
information about the seawall: 



Masonry Complete 

Ht. of wall 5.3 above M.L.W. 

4 ft wide at base, 3 ft at top, 5 ft coping 

29 
There are 659.7 linear ft of wall complete. (See 

appendix B for sample daily operations reports for this work.) 



The contractors' problems continued on into the new year. 
In March 1897 Nardin and Anderson asked for another extension, of two 
weeks, because the weather had not allowed any work to be done since 
January 1 . Two days of clear weather were needed after a rainy day 
before carts could be used on refilled ground. The extension was 
granted and the contract was completed by April 23, 1897. The 
construction of the seawall, the filling in of the low grounds in back of 



28. HARP, microfilm reel 42, "Money Statement to Dec. 31st 1896 for 
Operations at Fort McHenry, Md . " 

29. HARP, microfilm reel 42, handwritten note, [December 1896]. Many 
rough notes and reports, all handwritten by John Keaney, for the 1896 
work can be found at the end of reel 42. 



58 



it, the grading and seeding of the grounds and planting of trees 

30 ~ 
considerably improved the appearance of the fort's grounds. 



The history of Fort McHenry's seawall construction can be 
viewed in cycles. In each of the three construction phases, the 
recognized need for seawall protection occurred often years before money 
was appropriated and the seawall built. Even though construction was 
not always revealed in any detail in the historic literature, the Army 
engineers did mention that bad weather and high tides often led to delays 
of weeks. The seawall construction was repeatedly threatened by the 
same forces which washed and undermined Point Whetstone. Work 
progressed only under ideal conditions of low tides and calm skies. 
Eighty-one years elapsed between the initial building of a section of 
seawall in 1816 on the southeastern face of the military reservation and 
the final enclosure of the site in 1897 by the rebuilt seawall extension on 
the northwestern face. What followed were years of damage by storms, 
and repairs by both the War Department and the National Park Service. 



30. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Nardin and Anderson to Hains, March 23, 
1897; HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hains to Brig. Gen. John M. Wilson, 
March 23, 1897; HARP, HD 55, C2, S1897-98, Vol. 3 [?], "Annual report 
of the Chief of Engineers, United States Army," September 30, 1897. 



59 



E . Twentieth Century Damage and Repair 

1 . Changes Under the War Department 

Records in HARP for the next 35 years are very scarce. 
As a result, little mention was found of needed seawall repairs. It is 
possible that storm damage and subsequent repairs either went 
unrecorded or that reports on the subject were not collected during the 
HARP research. The few references which do refer to seawall repair do 
little more than mention the fact--no details as to materials or cost are 
given until the 1930s. 

Fort McHenry's commanding officer, Major M. Crawford, 
reported in August 1904 that "the earth behind the seawall at this post is 

caving in in several places, notably along the suoth [south] eastern face, 

1 
due to the action of the waves through the bottom of the wall. He 

requested repairs be made soon. No futher information concerning this 

damage was found. A 1907 report detailing the estimated value of all 

permanent improvements built by the Engineer Department near Baltimore 

2 
revealed that seawall improvements at Fort McHenry cost $45,000. 

In the following years Fort McHenry's status changed 
several times. (See illustration 14 for conditions in 1912 and illustrations 
15 and 16 for period photographs.) The secretary of war gave the city 
of Baltimore permission in 1914 to occupy the fort for public park 
purposes. This permit was revoked when World War I was declared, and 
in 1917 work began on General Hospital #2 at the site. The hospital was 
built around the original fort and batteries without any damage to the 
historical features. A 1919 map of the general hospital indicates that 
seawall repair was needed. No documentation of this work was found. 
(See illustrations 17 and 18 for 1919 map.) The War Department turned 



1. HARP, microfilm reel 42, M. Crawford to Lieut. Col. R.L. Hoxie, 
August 3, 1904. 

2. HARP, microfilm reel 42, Hoxie to Brig. Gen. A. Mackenzie, 
January 14, 1907. 



60 



the hospital over to the Public Health Department in 1920, but it was 
transferred again in 1921, this time to the Veterans Bureau. In 1925 the 
latter agency released all its rights and interests in the hospital back to 
the War Department. 






On March 3, 1925, Congress approved War Department 



plans to restore Fort McHenry to its condition at the time of its 



bombardment by the British in 1814. Only the original fort was to be 

3 
maintained as a memorial --subsequently th 

battery and World War I hospital were razed 



3 
maintained as a memorial --subsequently the 1873 partly completed water 



In a c. 1925 estimate of restoration costs for the fort only 

one reference to the seawall's condition was found. No estimate of costs 

to repair the seawall was developed along with those for the roads, 

entrance, star fort, upper water battery and other features. This was 

4 
because "the seawall is in good condition and requires few repairs." 

(See illustration 19 for photograph of 1925 conditions.) Another estimate 

for restoration work at the fort, written in 1927, makes no mention of any 

5 
funds being required for repairing the seawall. 

A much different picture emerges, however, from a report 
written just three years later. In a September 13, 1930, estimate 
covering proposed improvements to Fort McHenry's grounds no funds were 
requested to repair the seawall. However, in an attached description of 
work already completed by this date the seawall was mentioned: 



The seawall was in very bad state of repairs, and has fallen in 
many places, requiring rebuilding for several hundred feet. 



3. HARP, NA, RG-94, AGO, Corres, FM, 1927-39, "Fort McHenry, 
Maryland," compiled by L.W. Leisenring, O.Q.M.G., March 12, 1929. 

4. "Estimated Cost of Restoration of Fort McHenry" [c. 1925], 
pamphlet. Fort McHenry Vertical File, Maryland Collection, Enoch Pratt 
Free Library, Baltimore, Maryland. 

5. HARP, NA, RG-94, AGO, Corres, FM, 1927-39, B.F. Cheatham to 
the Budget Officer for the War Department, February 11, 1927. 



61 



Difficulty was encountered in doing this work, as work could 
only be carried on when the tide would permit. This work was 
accomplished off of rafts and boats R The stones were large, 
and had to be placed with a derrick. 

No other information concerning these repairs was found. 



2. National Park Service Ownership 

The War Department transferred Fort McHenry to the 
Department of the Interior, National Park Service on August 10, 1933. 
During the Depression-era work was done at the fort under the aegis of 
the Civil Works Administration and the Public Works Administration 
(PWA). In an annual report for 1934 Gettysburg Superintendent James 
R. McConaghie noted the damaged seawall had been repaired at a cost of 



$12,000 in PWA funds. McConaghie added, "Recent storm damage created 
the need for additional work ale 
and 21 for details of 1933 work.) 



the need for additional work along the sea wall." (See illustrations 20 



Repairs occurred again in 1937. Beginning August 27 the 
National Park Service, probably using Works Progress Administration 
(WPA) labor, removed 70 feet of seawall which was damaged in a storm 
the preceding spring. By September 3 a portion of the seawall had been 
removed and relaying work was to begin within a week. Almost a month 
later, on October 1, the superintendent reported very little progress had 
been made in the seawall repairs because "we were not able to draw plans 
for final approval until a portion of the wall had been removed to learn 
the kind of foundation." Approval was not received until "the latter part 
of the month," needed materials were ordered and received, and the 

o 

superintendent did not expect the work to be interrupted again. 



6. HARP, Memorandum to the Adjutant General, Washington, D.C., 
September 13, 1930. 

7. HARP, "Annual report for the Fort McHenry National Park, Year 
Ending Sept. 30, 1934," James R. McConaghie. 

8. HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report, August, 1937," 
September 3, 1937; HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report, 
September 1937," October 1, 1937. 



62 



By the end of October the repairs were 90 percent 

complete because "exceedingly favorable weather conditions" allowed the 

work to progress to the point where only the coping stone was needed. 

In November, however, "due to the great expense involved," the decision 

was made not to use coping stone. The top of the seawall was finished 

with concrete instead. At the end of the month one-half of the concrete 

sections were poured and the job was 95 percent complete. Cold weather 

threatened to delay the project in December, but moderate temperatures 

prevailed long enough to get the concrete poured and the work finished. 

g 
The total cost was $2,247. (See illustration 22 for 1937 seawall repairs.) 

Repointing the seawall began in spring 1938. Evidently 
the work had been started at some point in time as an Emergency Relief 
Appropriation project, but was now being done with WPA funds. During 
May, 9,500 square feet were repointed. The work was finished by the 

end of June, and the entire seawall, approximately 12,500 square feet, 

10 
was treated. (See illustration 23 for a photograph of 1938 pointing 

work. Illustrations 24, 25, 26 detail other pre-1948 damages.) 

Photographs in the park files reveal damage incurred in 
August 1955 by hurricane "Connie." No further data about this damage 
surfaced. (See illustrations 27 and 28.) 

No further mention of the seawall was found until the year 
1973. Even though the HARP project extended only until 1958, Fort 
McHenry staff has kept records for every year to 1984. These National 
Park Service records are not complete, but do yield some data on the 
seawall's state of repair. 



9. HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report for October 
1937," November 4, 1937; HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly 
Report for November 1937," December 7, 1937; HARP, "Superintendent's 
Narrative Monthly Report for December 1937," January 7, 1938. 

10. HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report for Month of May 
1938," June 10, 1938; HARP, "Superintendent's Narrative Monthly Report 
for June 1938," July 6, 1938. 



63 



The seawall's rehabilitation was considered in 1973. Van 
Reuth and Weidner, Inc., was contracted to study the seawall damage and 
make recommendations. Even though this study was not fully 

implemented, the National Park Service was aware, at that point, of the 
problems with the seawall. 

Rehabilitation of the seawall occurred in 1975. The 
National Park Service contracted the work to Martin G. Inbach, Inc., for 
$167,687.50. March 3, 1975, was the first day of the contract and the 
work consisted of placing stone riprap in front of the seawall, repointing, 
resetting of displaced seawall stones, replacing missing seawall stone and 
capstone, and reconstructing the seawall at several locations including 
extending several pipes through the new stone riprap. (See illustration 
29 for details of riprap work.) Topsoil was also replaced. The 

contractor finished the work on June 3, 1975, at a final price of 

1 1 
$174,632.12 because of project overruns. 



The cost and amounts of materials used on the project 



were as follows 



Item Contract Description 

No. Quantity 

1. 8LF 6-inch Cast iron Pipe 

2. 10LF 6-inch Extra Stength Clay 

3. 14,850 ft Plastic Filter cloth & steel 

Anchor Pin 

4. 2,580 Tons Rip Rap Stone 

5. 13,355 Yd Topsoil, Seeding, Fertiliz- 

ing and Mulching 

6. Lump Sum Portland Cement Concrete 

for Pipe Bedding & En- 
casement L.S. 1,500.00 1,500.00 



Quantity 


Unit 


Amount 


to Date 


Price 


to Date 


8 LF 


10.00 


80.00 


18 LF 


10.00 


180.00 


14,400 


.30 


4,320.00 


2,902.55 


27.50 


79,820.12 


6,000 Yd 


.30 


1,800.00 



11. "Rehabilitation of Existing Seawall Fort McHenry National Monument 
and Historic Shrine." Rehabilitate Seawall 106 File, Cul. Resource Mgt. 
Div., Mid Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. A copy of the Van Reuth and Weidner, Inc. report of July 
1973 has not been found. A reference to it is cited in the 
"Rehabilitation" document. Fort McHenry Files (FOMC), Memorandum to 
Contracting Officer, DSC-CA from District Project Supervisor Robert M. 
Dinterman, August 5, 1975. 



64 



7. 


5,350 Ft 


8. 


9,550 Ft 


9. 


46 Ft 



Reconstruction of Stone 

Walls 5,218 Ft 9.00 46,962.00 

Repointed Masonry 9,800 Ft 3.20 31,360.00 

Resetting Displaced or 

Loose Wall Stone & Cap 

Stone 90 Ft 21.00 1,890.00 



10. 296 Ft. Replace Missing Wall stone 

and Missing or Broken 

Cap Stone ? 311 Ft 20.00 6,220.00 

11. $1,000.00 Force Account Work 

Tropical storm "David" inflicted major damage on the 
seawall in September 1979. According to staff meeting records, "The 

seawall is practically gone now, and the only real way of repairing it is 

13 
to tear down what is left, and rebuild the entire damaged seawall." 

The storm washed out approximately 75 feet of seawall and lifted around 

150 feet of coping stones from sections of the seawall. Photographs were 

taken of the damage and temporary work was done to prevent further 



deterioration from subsequent storms. In 1981 portions of the seawall 
breached by the 1979 storm were 
breaches were finally repaired in 1984. 



14 
breached by the 1979 storm were stabilized with sandbags. The 



Because the records for the twentieth century are so 
scarce it is difficult to determine how often repairs were required, how 
extensive any damage was, or exactly where the seawall suffered damage. 
It is probable that the cycle of damage and repair occurred as frequently 
in the post-1900 years as it had since the first section of seawall was 
built. 

It is known that a change in philosophy of the wall's 
design occurred between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The 



12. Ibid. 

13. FOMC, "Squad Meeting Minutes," September 13, 1979. 

14. FOMC, "Squad Meeting Minutes," October 10, 1979; November 9, 
1979, FOMC, "Resource Management Plan," National Park Service, United 
States Department of the Interior, 1981, pp. 7, 10. 



65 



original seawall (1816-1897) construction was a dry laid wall topped with a 
capstone. Repairs were in kind. The first evidence of design change is 
in 1919 and later when the seawall was repaired with cement. In 1938 
pointing work occurred, which changed the seawall's original 
configuration. Perhaps this change in design philosophy happened in an 
attempt to build a more water resistant wall. The desire to make the 
seawall impervious to the wave action may have had an effect on drainage 
of the fill behind the seawall. 

The seawall has performed several functions. Foremost, it 
prevented major erosion of Fort McHenry's grounds. Serious flooding 
occurred only when sections of the seawall itself were destroyed in 
storms. Secondly, the seawall protected the grounds, and in essence, 
Fort McHenry's garrison, from unhealthy conditions generated by pollution 
in Patapsco Bay. The seawall prevented decayed matter and other debris 
from washing onto and possibly contaminating the grounds. There is also 
evidence that privies placed on the seawall provided a type of sewage 
system for some length of time. Wave action and high tides kept the 
privies reasonably clean. Thirdly, the seawall probably served a function 
in the social life of both the garrison and nearby neighbors. The one 
reference to women using the seawall as a promenade is, unfortunately, 
the only glimpse into the social use of the seawall. It probably served as 
a meeting place, an observation deck for bay activities, or the perfect 
promenade for an evening walk. 

Even though the seawall did not exist when Fort McHenry 
withstood the British bombardment in 1814, its subsequent protection 
helped insure the fort's existence in the face of winds and waves. Fort 
McHenry's seawall continues to stand on guard, like a dutiful but 
overlooked soldier, ever in defense against the enemy. 



66 



CHRONOLOGY 



April 13, 1794 

May 14, 1814 

September 6, 1816 
November 6, 1816 

November 15, 1816 -• 



December 4, 1816 
December 31 , 1817 

January 9, 1818 



June 25, 1818 

December 15, 1818 

December 21, 1818 

April 20, 1819 
September 15, 1819 

September 21 , 1819 



In a letter, Rivardi mentions the ground being 

undermined by the water. 

first mention of need for stone wall to secure the 

lower or water battery. 

preparations to build seawall 

estimates of work needed, materials needed to 

build seawall 

water encroaching upon the point; part of which 

had been washed away; a seawall would be 

serviceable 

work had commenced on seawall 

1,460 ft of seawall completed; 3 feet foundation, 4 

feet high, 4-6 feet thickness 

request to "finish the wall. . . to secure the site 

of Fort McHenry from the Effect of the tide, 

which had for Years been gradually cutting away 

the Bank at the Point upon which the Fort 

stands. " 

it is intended to complete the work begun by 

Colonel Armistead 

seawall sustained no damage in the storm of 4th 

or 5th; proposal to commence coping in the spring 

proposal to use granite from the Susquehannah 

for the seawall coping 

a glacias to be made to the edge of the seawall 

the "wall" proposed by Hindman to extend from 

the point where the wall "now building" was 

commenced to the wharf, will not be undertaken 

re: Armistead's request for "addition to 

the WaH"--Smith does not believe it necessary 

"There is no appearance of the water having 

encroached upon the land on that side," a bank 

forming 30 or 60 feet from the shore affords a 

good protection against the violence of the surf. 



67 



June 1, 1829 



June 8, 1830 



June 9, 1830 

May [?] 8, 1830 
November 10, 1836 



November 15, 1836 



December 4, 1836 



October 24, 1837 



December 16, 1837 



October 29, 1838 



"a sufficient quantity of bricks can be obtained 

from the old seawall in front of this work, and 

from old Fort Covington without cost to the 

Government" to build quarters 

estimate of funds required for completing the 

seawall; for continuing seawall from its 

termination to the wharf, a distance of from 750 

to 800 feet 

fund request not sufficient to authorize the 

construction of the seawall about the Fort 

estimate of funds required to complete the seawall 

work started on "that part of the Sea Wall which 

it was necessary to complete, on the North East 

part of the Point. . . will be finished by the 

latter end of January next." 

the estimated expense of building a seawall to the 

new purchase is $10,000 

the repairs of Fort McHenry reported as 

completed by the Engineer Department 

report of repairs; "The Sea Wall of Granite from 

the Susquehannah , has been built to the extent 

of 1300 ft exclusive of the Coping about 600 ft 

remains to be finished on the North Side, & about 

1000 ft on the South Side of the Peninsula in 

which the Fort Stands." 

repairs to be completed: "The Stone Wall about 

1700 feet remains to be built, & the Coping Stone 

laid on about 1200 feet." 

commenced operations on August 1st, on the 

seawall--the whole extent of this wall will be when 

finished 2,111 feet--on this There were laid this 

Season 830 feet of Coping Stone & 150 feet of the 

wall built--950 feet have been completed. 1,550 

feet of wall, four feet & an half high, have been 

built exclusive of the foundations, which varies 

from eighteen inches to two feet deep. 



68 



October 31, 1838 



December 4, 1838 

October 17, 1839 
March 2, 1840 



August 25, 1842 
September 5, 1842 



September 11, 1842 
October 11, 1842 

January 7, 1845 

November 28, 1857 



Thus leaving but 561 feet to be built, of which 

the foundation has laid this summer except about 

50 feet. 

seawall is complete except 600 feet, the 

foundation of which is laid — & then shall have 

about 1000 ft of coping to put on which has been 

delivered. 

Report of the secretary of war: "The seawall is 

now completed to a length of 950 feet, and 1,550 

feet more are 4 1/2 feet high." 

the remaining part of the seawall about 560 feet 

has been finished 

report that the seawall commenced October 1, 

1836, and worked upon at different times until 

August 1839 was finished; this wall commences at 

the northeast point of the property and runs to 

the boundary wall 

a gale did "considerable injury" to the seawall 

re: storm damage; prostrate portions of the wall 

are to be relaid, any single stones recovered are 

to be returned to their proper positions 

estimate for repair of seawall--$165 

repairs of the seawall were finished on the 28th 

of last month 

proposal to build a seawall "for the protection of 

the Hospital position" 

report that the seawall has never been completed; 

it extends along the entire north side, round the 

east corner, and on the South side to a short 

distance west of the fort, but from this point to 

the west wall separating the public ground from 

private property there is nothing to prevent the 

cutting away of the bank by the action of the 

waves 



69 



February 9, 1858 
March 16, 1858 

November 5, 1862 

April 28, 1870 

February 28, 1874 



May 31, 1875 
September 18, 1876 
October 1, 1876 

October 4, 1876 

November 1, 1876 
December 1, 1876 
July 1877 

March 4, 1878 
March 31, 1879 



plan to extend seawall to the south 

estimate to build seawall; 1,026 cub yds of dry 

rubble, masonry @ $6 $6,156 

Brewerton wants to know if appropriation has 

been made to extend the seawall on the south side 

inspection report: the sea is encroaching on the 

work, an extra seawall is required to protect it 

"On the southern side the line desired by the 

U.S. to be established is in prolongation of the 

existing Port Warden's line. . . [and] the line is 

proposed to coincide with the seawall now 

bounding the U.S. land." 

formation of unhealthy beach along seawall by 

wharf 

storm damaged wharf; the seawall was washed 

badly in places beyond the post traders 

severe storm of [September] 17th-l8th shook up 

badly the south face of the sea wall about the 

site 

appropriation of $1,000 allotted to repair storm 

damage at Forts McHenry, Carroll, Washington, & 

Foote 

repairs to seawall damaged by storm have been 

commenced 

repairs to seawall have been continued through 

the month 

repairs as extensive as funds would allow were 

made upon the wall during October and November 

1876 

proposal to extend reservation with fill and 

construction of new outer seawall 

the seawall has come to be in such a state as to 

need very extensive repairs which should not be 

longer deferred, $2,700 will be required 



70 



April 22, 1879 -- money not exceeding $3,000 could be very 

advantageously expended on the seawall which is 
in very bad condition 

July 1, 1879 -- reparation of the seawall has been carried out 

August 2, 1879 -- the reparation of the seawall; this has been 

entirely completed with the setting of the new 
coping, 10 inches thick by 4 feet wide, over the 
50 ft of wall near sutler's store, left incomplete 
June 30, 1879 

October 20, 1879 -- Report of The Chief of Engineers, "The repairs 

of the sea wall should be continued throughout 
the remainder of its length. The wall has 

been standing over 40 years. ... It would be 
better, however, to build a new sea-wall on the 
port warden's line fill in the area thus gained, 
and thus extend the drill ground. The filling 
could be readily and cheaply made by allowing 
vessels coming to the port to drop their ballast 
there. " 

February 25, 1880 -- dropping off ballast to extend shoreline in front 

of the seawall 

June 1, 1880 -- "The contractors for building the new dry dock 

have ceased dumping their excavated material on 
the site between the existing seawall and the 
prescribed Port warder's line." 

July 1, 1880 -- a bulkhead of ballast was made by the U.S. 

without expense; a seawall should be built along 
the line of the temporary bulkheads; dumping of 
ballast continues 

July 1880 - May 1881 -- dumping of ballast in front of seawall continues 

April 2, 1881 -- repairs to slopes and sea wall will be commenced 

during the month 

June 4, 1881 -- repairs to seawall, coping removed from where 

area is being filled in and used to replace coping 
in other places 



71 



July 12, 1881 
November 29, 1881 
May 23, 1883 

August 12, 1884 
January 29, 1885 
May 1885 



January 8, 1886 
Feburary 2, 1886 
June 10, 1888 

October 2, 1888 

October 4, 1888 
October 9, 1888 

November 8, 1888 

March 23, 1889 



April 16, 1889 
June 17, 1889 



June 22, 1889 
July 19, 1889 
July 1889 



repairs behind seawall are "rough appearing" 

no encroachment upon work by the sea 

iron miners in the Patapsco are working too close 

to the seawall 

request to extend the seawall all the way around 

another request to extend the seawall 

another request to extend the seawall, being 

"left unfinished at the end in rear of the 

bakehouse, on the south side of the fort." 

storm damaged seawall, that portion looking 

toward Fort Carroil 

severe gale did damage to the seawall; report 

will be made as to extent and remedy of damage 

landslide on the parapet has nearly thrown the 

seawall into the water; the seawall needs repair in 

several places 

estimate to repair new water battery seawall 

$2,750 

proposal to sink wells to protect seawall 

proposal to build new foundation and placement of 

riprap in front of new wall 

repair of seawall and adjacent parapet estimate 

$2,975 

widening of the channel results in damage to the 

seawall, undermining of wall; riprap protection 

estimate--$300 

contractors repairing seawall ask for extension 

storms on May 31 further damage seawall; 

proposal to riprap in front of seawall until a 

weight to balance the pressure at rear is gotten 

new seawall has stopped moving 

repairs to slopes and seawall are underway 

another request to build seawall along the line of 

the temporary bulkhead 



72 



August 20, 1889 

August 26, 1889 

August 29, 1889 
October 16, 1889 
October 28, 1889 



November 30, 1889 -■ 

January 17, 1890 
June 12, 1890 

July 1890 

October 6, 1892 

October 11, 1892 
April 12, 1893 

August 30, 1893 

September 7, 1893 
October 20, 1893 



"dangerous holes" appear in seawall near low 

water line, which cannot be filled until the low 

water season in autumn 

examination of the seawall shows that the dry 

underpinning needs replacement to prevent the 

falling of considerable portions of the wall 

estimate of $1,986 to repair water battery and 

seawall 

low bidder for repair of seawall was George F. 

Nardin 

proposal to remove upper half of seawall, 

recently built, at end of water battery and 

rebuild it in a straight line, "merely as a matter 

of 'looks'" 

small amount of repairs to seawall done by a 

contractor 

work at Fort McHenry is completed 

proposal to build "wall" at foot of cliff to prevent 

washing of cemetery 

another request to build seawall along line of 

temporary bulkhead 

money allotted to replace riprap at foot of seawall 

at westerly ena of exterior water battery 

$25 available to repair riprap 

work not yet started due to inclement weather, 

but will be before end of June 

storm on August 28 destroyed wharf, damaged 

earthworks, and carried away extensive portions 

of the seawall 

the gale of August 28 "considerably injured" the 

seawall; estimate of cost $2,500 

a storm on October 13 further damaged seawall; 

several sections measuring from 20-30 ft have 

been opened; wall openings made in August storm 

now measure 75 ft in length; tide rose 3 ft above 

sea wall 



73 



November 1 , 1893 
November 8, 1893 

November 19, 1893 



December 6, 1893 



December 7, 1893 



May 3, 1894 
May 15, 1894 
May 16, 1894 
June 30, 1894 

August 8, 1894 

August 13, 1894 
August 16, 1894 



allotment of $2,000 made to repair seawall 

heavy masonry will be needed for repairs of the 

seawall 

proposal to extend seawall on the north west 

side; considerable ground had been washed away 

and wall is needed on south side to keep water 

from undermining the post cemetery which was 

badly exposed by October 13 storm 

to extend the seawall from its present terminus on 

the western face of reservation, to the north 

boundary wall, and to grade and fill ground in 

rear to protect cemetery will require 2300 c. yds 

dry stone, 9,000 ft 6" coping, 5,000 c. yds earth 

and shell filling 

serious injury was done to the seawall by the 

gales of August and October; repairs have been 

in progress with allotment of $2,000 but have 

been suspended for the winter 

notice inviting proposals for materials for repair 

of seawall 

George F. Nardin's proposal to furnish sand, 

coping, stone is accepted 

Maryland Lime & Cement Company proposal to 

furnish cement is accepted 

serious injury to seawall from gales of August 

and October 1893; repairs have been in progress, 

but are suspended for want of funds 

the seawall from wharf to new section does not 

require further repair at present 

estimate for building seawall to protect cemetery 

the existing seawall has been sufficiently 

repaired for the present. The entire western 

face of the property from termination of the old 

seawall to northern boundary is entirely 

unprotected; to build a seawall along the whole 

front, 1,043 feet, would cost $12,900. 



74 



September 25, 1894 
October 25, 1894 

December 24, 1894 



January 2, 1895 
January 4, 1895 



March 24, 1895 

March 28, 1895 

April 30, 1895 

May 4, 1895 
July 31, 1895 

September 10, 1895 



September 14, 1895 -- 



September 14, 1895 - 



appropriation to protect site in front of cemetery 

contract with George F. Nardin for building a 

seawall 

building seawall on southwest front of 

reservation: contractor is hauling stone, has 

foundation in, and 80 ft of wall 3 ft high 

Nardin's contract time extended 20 days 

work has been in progress since November 9 on 

portion of seawall in rear of cemetery; this 

seawall should be extended in both directions 

when money can be had for the purchase 

request that Nardin resume work on seawall on 

April 1st 

specification for remainder of seawall behind Fort 

McHenry 

Albert Weber's proposal for building seawall 

accepted 

contract with Albert Weber 

contract extended from August 5, 1895, to 

September 30, 1895, because of "extraordinary" 

high tides 

to put Fort McHenry into a respectable condition, 

a seawall (similar to one on southwest front) on 

the north front extending from a point near the 

wharf to property line of Dry Dock G which will 

include the present partial filling of shells and 

earth is needed 

the "filling in" behind new seawall will soon be 

completed, and surfaces ready for being covered 

with "street sweepings" or equally good material 

for growing grass for protection of slopes 

estimate for constructing seawall (similar to that 

on southwest front) on the north front, extending 

from a point near the wharf to such point on the 

line of property of the Dry Dock Company will 

include the present partial filling of shells and 

stone 



75 



September 20, 1895 



September 28, 1895 



November 14, 1895 
July 1, 1896 



August 8, 1896 
August 26, 1896 
October 8, 1896 
December 13, 1896 



December 19, 1896 



March 23, 1897 



September 30, 1897 



August 3, 1904 



January 14, 1907 



completion on 19th of work under contract with 

Albert Weber 

building a portion of the seawall in rear of the 

cemetery 227 feet long was finished May 22, 1895 

(Nardin ) 

estimate to build seawall on north front 

allotment of $13,750 to be applied to construction 

of a seawall and embankment on the water front 

of the Fort McHenry, Md . , reservation 

firm of Nardin and Anderson was lowest bid for 

the seawall 

contract with Nardin and Anderson for building 

seawall 

proposal of Nardin's to refill back of old seawall 

accepted 

contractors broke sewer pipe near where it joined 

the original one; the original one is broken where 

they took up the stones from the old wall, which 

has caused the flooding of that part of the post 

contract of Nardin extended from January 1 to 

April 1, 1897 

contract of Nardin and Anderson extended from 

April 1, 1897 to April 30, 1897 

the seawall on the east side of the reservation 

was completed; this completes a seawall so much 

needed for protection from the action of the sea; 

work done by contract which was commenced 

August 28, 1896, completed April 23, 1897 

( Nardin ) 

earth behind the seawall is caving in in several 

places, notably along the southeastern face, due 

to the action of the waves through the bottom of 

the wall 

value of all permanent improvements to the 

seawall $45,000 



76 



September 30, 1934 

September 3, 1937 

November 4, 1937 

December 7, 1937 

January 7, 1938 

June 10, 1938 

July 6, 1938 
July 1973 

November 14, 1974 

August 5, 1975 

September 13, 1979 



Public Works Administration: repair of damaged 

seawall; allotment $12,000, 100 percent completed 

removal of 70 ft of seawall damaged in storm last 

spring 

seawall laid to a point, now ready for coping 

stone job 90 percent complete 

coping stone not used on top of seawall, being 

finished with concrete 

job is finished; final construction consisted of 

pouring the concrete cup 

Works Progress Administration: 9,500 sq. ft. of 

seawall repointed 

repointing completed for 12,500 sq ft 

Van Reuth and Weidner, Inc., prepare report on 

the rehabilitation of the seawall 

bidding documents: rehabilitation of seawall by 

National Park Service 

contract requirements completed for seawall 

rehabilitation; started March 3, 1975, completed 

May 29, 1975; riprap placed along seawall 

seawall sustained major damage from hurricane 

"David"; seawall practically gone and only way to 

repair is to take down what is left and rebuild 

the entire damaged seawall 



77 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 



The HARP historians labored under time restraints but they gathered 
a voluminous amount of material concerning Fort McHenry. Gaps in the 
data do exist, however, and further labor intensive research on the 
seawall could be conducted at the National Archives in the War 
Department records for these missing years which may or may not result 
in additional construction related data. 

The Fort McHenry files covering the National Park Service years are 
also not complete. Research in the National Park Service records in the 
National Archives could possibly reveal further data on twentieth century 
seawall damage and repair. 

Further research in the HARP files on any topic would be greatly 
aided if the bound materials were indexed. All of the HARP microfilm 
reels should be duplicated, indexed, and added to the bound materials. 

Archeological investigations behind the seawall could possibly answer 
construction questions and identify the type and quantity of fill placed 
behind the seawall. The fill may be related to the fort's hydrological 
drainage problems. 



79 



LLUSTRATIONS 



81 



m 

O 

00 



C 
(U 

X 

u 



o 

LL 



C 

o 



82 








> 




"3- 

00 



c 

0) 

I 
u 



s_ 
o 

LL 



a 

E 

</) 

CO 

< 

I 



CVJ 

z 
o 

- 
— 

3 



84 



CD 
00 



c 

0) 

I 

o 



o 
a. 

X) 

c 
c 



10 

3 
O 
0. 



h 

E 



m 



c 
o 



86 





J I 



i 






87 



01 



00 

> 

c 

CD 

I 

u 



10 



w 

re 

u 

o 

+-> 
W 

I 



z 
o 



88 




89 



Illustration 5. Fort McHenry 1834 



90 



«*«•• 


*.«. 


•It... 


Itvl 










an ■. 




• 








*•/- 


• •.»». . 














**•%- 


-%.». 1. 


.... • 


IH*. » 


»•..'■%' 


■>k 


•r 




■**% 
















*m» 


M>V*B <a 


» It*. 


• *.«. 


• tV 


.— . 


... 


,, 


■*• •> »«... i... fc «_ 


lf««M ». 








*• •» . 


»-• It. . 


*»... 


« c 


».«i. 




SI 


'I- 


*- \» 


*..^.S. 


V 












.*- ir 


....... ».^.J 


■y -■« 










Jf lb 














> 


•^ ' i ' r 








*•*!• 


W*P 


t. fed 


auk 




-J 





N 



v* 




l l y T L "£/J. = Jti 8 "Xi-|f-^ 



P'HWH »- oV> .. «x JU <M ». 



J 



x 



* b 



91 



CD 

rn 
00 



c 

CD 

X 
U 



c 
g 

— - 

3 



92 




93 



o 



> 

c 

1) 

I 
U 



o 

LL 



o 

i- 

Q) 

4-> 
■M 

DQ 
(U 

4-> 

^ J 

u 
n 

'_ 

o 

CO 

'^ 

o 

Hi 

♦-" 

X 
LU 



c 
o 

X 
— 
3 



94 



CD 

Q 



S_ 
0) 

+-> 
4-> 

1! 



CD 
-O 

£_ 

11 

CO 

i_ 
o 

'$_ 

dl 

4-1 

X 

UJ 

o 

CO 



00 

c 
o 

- 

L. 

Ifl 

3 



96 




97 



Illustration 9. 1878 map of proposed boundary change 



98 




99 



Illustration 10. 1870 map showing encroachment of high waterline 
and location of proposed seawall 



100 



Prowers A 




k~A."*'.»y JTitjy. Jr**A - 



"1 



W.V 



*3 



vSj&fi. 



Jem it Y"" U f ' ■+*/*>- 

t r r » r t Jirr r-i t: 1 i it ' ■ r .f up; 





Jfy^^Y** 




Ft M c /tf>nry r^V 



Illustration 11. 1870 seawall proposal, Detail 



102 



4+ArJ6rftZ* 




&ynr/w/ *JV«^* *//&& 




J«&J£ 



103 



00 
00 
00 



c 

(D 

I 

u 



o 






N 



C 
o 

to 
D 



104 




105 



Ilustration 13. Sketch to show proposed change of wharf 
at Fort McHenry 1893 



106 






"N 









- Ar- — 



giccUe, J isicA. Co lSv fe&?- 




fa ySktetfyl/fy- 



107 



CM 

c 



c 

v 
X 

u 



o 

LL 



c 
o 

+J 
ro 

L. 
— 
1/1 



108 




109 



Illustration 15. 1910 postcard showing seawal 
John H. McGarry Collection 



llustration 16. 1920 postcard showing seawal 
John H. McGarry Collection 



110 



Fort McHenry, Baltimore, Md. 










— i ■» i * i * • ■ - ~ -*_ —■■ ■ ■ 



Panorama View, Historic Fort McHenry. Baltimore, Md. 



C7> 



ft) 

CD 

in 



c 

> 

03 



C 
I 

u 



TvJ 

o 
z 

~r6 

■M 

a 
i/i 

o 

I 

(_ 

c 
aj 
13 



112 



! 




113 



Illustration 18. Seawall 1919, Detail 



1 14 





Examples of Present GoNHTitn of wall 




Rip Roy 



Note - Drill li' hole fb. dowel «{fer 
Slone hae bc-eri re%«t 
Stones >o be lo>d in rich 
oemeni mortar 



Section of wall as proposed to Be Rebuilt 



Scole - I*- Z-o" 



I" DoWels 

1 

•— I 



115 



Illustration 19. Aerial view, 



General Hospital, No. 2, c, 



1925 



116 




117 



00 
00 

en 



oo 

CM 

■M 

D 
O) 
D 
< 



E 

'- 
O 



TJ 
0) 
O) 

03 

E 

(TJ 
TJ 



U 



(TJ 
<3J 

■a 



(TJ 

$ 

05 
0) 
l/> 

I 
to 

'(TJ 

Q. 
(1) 

a: 



o 

CM 

c 
c 



Ifl 



118 




119 



V 

2i 



- 

u 
s_ 



<T3 

5 

(1) 
W 

,-0 



CM 

C 

o 



3 



120 








V 



*i 



n 



121 



r- 

-n 



(T3 

C 
o 

4-1 

in 

s_ 
ro 
O. 

"(5 

c 
o 

0) 

Z 

> 

C 
<u 
I 
U 



L. 
O 



C 
O 

to 

3 



122 




ui O 

i — 



n 


I 


7 


u 




-^ 


.1 


' 





Q. 




-0/ 
S3 

i 



9 * 

a" 
5 




uj 



UJ 



UJ 






123 



Ilustration 23. Photograph of 1938 pointing on seawall 



124 






£f**e 




f « . • 



^■'tf^ 









125 



Illustration 24. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage 



126 




127 



Illustration 25. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage 



128 




129 



Illustration 26. Photograph of pre-1948 seawall damage 



130 



t 




131 



'c 
c 
o 
u 



c 

03 

u 

i_ 
D 

_c 

E 
o 



E 

03 

■o 



03 

03 
Q3 
(/) 

LT) 



1/3 

3 
D) 

D 
< 



Q. 

03 

s_ 
O) 

o 

o 

Q. 



C 

o 

CO 



132 




133 



'c 
c 
o 
u 



CD 

c 
ro 
u 

's_ 

s_ 
3 
JZ 

E 
o 

4- 

<U 
D) 
03 

E 

03 
T3 



<D 
m 



D 
O) 

D 
< 



x: 
a 

CD 

S_ 

O) 

o 
o 

Q. 



00 
C\J 

c 
o 

I/] 

3 



134 



\ 




^d 



I 



% 










1 1 



135 



l/> 

o 
a. 
o 

a 



(TJ 
OJ 
I/) 

0) 

-C 
+-> 

1- 

a 

c 
o 

+J 
u 
<D 

o 

t_ 
a 

a 

s_ 

a 



en 



03 

•M 

CO 

Q 



CD 

c\j 

c 
o 

'■*-> 

•- 

w 

3 



136 



M»:"' — 



« »5 »■* —Sir 



i = : 3 ,• ; i ; s g 







1=1 

« ■ I i 



Si's =?; 

.lit 5|||2§| 3 



;- < 



GO 




137 



APPENDICES 



A. Building a Sea=Wall, Contract, August 1896 



B. Daily Journal of Operations on Fort McHenry, 1 



896 



139 



No 



1 'IV l I < ••- \ I « • I 



Oh J E N F D AUGUST 7.1890 



Building a Sea=Wall 



Milking Repairs 



l^url Mol U'urv, 



140 



PWC)lM>SAIv» 



Building Sea Wail and making Repairs ai Fori ttonj. 



/ 1 ' '/, • i -, 1 1, i .*-.//• 



\ X< . I X I I K < M I Iv I . 

1 1, i ' ' i i ) i , , ■ i ■< . \). I . . 1 1 1 ' 1 1 i 



I s .' / / , 



Proposals for huildhu.' a Sen-Wnll and makiin.' repair- it I "it M- Ibnry liaitiinore. 
Mil., will In' received until iimm • >! \in.-u-! 7. I"'.*'!, and llii'ti opened, 
h'ur iiifiiriiiiitinii . > | ■ i • ' > '" 



1 *l ■'. I 1 \\< C I !.\ i XS. 



/ 



SPECIFICATIONS. 








GKNERAI, INSTRUCTIONS Foil IllDDKIts. 

1. The attention of bidden bi especially invited to the acts* of Congrats approved 
February "if!, 1MH5, and February 23, 1HK7, an printed In vol. 23. page 332, and vol. 24, page 
414, Uuited States Statute* at Large, which prohibit the importation of foreigner* and 
nliena, under c""WWTt or agre ement, to perforin labor iu the Uuited States or Territories or 

the rMstrletortl BlPVV 



2. 1 'reference HW^rn* to article* or aatadaftl tt lu m mt** ptv J wMtm, maARIonfi 
of quality and price being eqnal, including in the price of foreign article- the duty thereon. 

3. Maps of the localities may be seen at this office, didders, or their authorized 
flkrents, are expected to visit the place and to make their own estimates of (he facilities 
and difficulties attending the execution of the work, including tin- uncertainty ■ <{ vveatln r 
and all other contingencies. 

I, No proposal will b>> considered unless accompanied by a L'uaranly in manner and 
form as directed in these instructions. 

V All bids and guaranties must he made in triplicate upon printed torm* to be ob- 
tained at this office. 

•'<. The guaranty attached to each copy of the bid must be -iu'iied by two responsible 
guarantors, to he certified as good and sufficient guarantors !>y a -ludire or clerk of I'uited 
Stati-i < 'ourt. I'nited States I »ist ri«-t Attorney. I nited Stales Commissioner, or ludire >r 
clerk of a State court of record, with the seal of ^aid court attached. 

7. A firm as *uch will not be accepted as -im-ty. nor a partner for a copartner <>r firm 
of which he is a member, stockholders wh<> an 1 not .iffirer- of a corporation may be 
accepted as sureties tor :iich corporation. Miretie* must be citizens uf the I'uited States. 

k. Kach signature to guaranties and bond* shall have affixed to it an adhesive seal. 
All siiniatures to proposals, iruflrauties, contracts and l»»nd« should be written out in full. 



141 



•J 

•ad each nlgaatsre to guaranties, contract* and bond* should be attested by at least one 
witness, and, when practicable, by a separate witness to each signature. 

9. Each iruarantor will justify in the mm of two thousand dollar*. The liability of 
the guarantor* and bidder Is determined by the act nf March :t. IMM.t. •_»_> Statute*, 1*7, chap. 
12o, and ia eip r e a eed In the guaranty attached to the bid. 

10. A proposal by a j>er*on who affixes to hi* signature the word " president," " :*ecre- 
tary," " agent," or other designation, without disclosing hi* principal, is the proposal of 
the Individual. That by a corporation should be signed with the name of the corporation, 
followed by the signature of the president, secretary or other person authorized to bind it 
in the matter, who should file evidence of his authority to do so. That by a flrui should 
be signed with the Arm name, either by a member thereof or by its accent, giving the name- 
of all members of the Arm. 

11. The place of residence of every bidder, and |«>*t-offlce address, with county ami 
State, must be given after his signature. 

12. All prices must be written as well as expressed in figures. 

13. One copy each of the advertisement, the instructions for bidders, and the specifi- 
cations, all of which can be obtained at thin office on application by mail or in |»er*on, must 
be securely attached to each copy of the proposal n> 1 b* c».i»«idered as comprising a part 
of it. 

14. Proposals must be prepared without assistance from any i>erson employed in or 
belonging to the military service of the I'nited State* or employed under this office. 

15. No bidder will be luformed, directly or indirectly, of the name of any person in- 
tending to bid or not to bid, or to whom information in respect to proposals may have been 
given. 

16. Any one signing the proposal a* the agent of another or others must file with it 
legal evidence of hi* authority to do so. 

17. All blank apace* in the proposal and bond must be filled In. and no change shall 
be made In the phraseology of the proposal, or addition to the items mentioned therein. 
Any conditions, limitations, or proviso* attached to proposals will be liable to render them 
informal, and cause their rejection. 

18. Alteration* by erasure or interlineation must be explained or noted in the propo- 
sal over the signature of the bidder. 

19. If a bidder wishes to withdraw his proposal he may do so before the time fixed 
for the opening, without prejudice to himself, by communicating his purpose in writing to 
the officer who hold* it, and, when reached, it shall be handed to him or his authorized 
agent, unread. 

20. Reasonable grounds for supposing that any bidder is interested iu more than one 
bid for the same item will cause the rejection of all bids iu which he is interested. 

21. No bids received after the time set for opening of pro|>oaals will be considered. 

22 The proposals and guaranties must be placed in a sealed envelope marked pro- 
posal for re)«ir* at Fort McHenry." and Inclosed in another sealed envelope addressed to 
Col. Peter C. Halns, Corps of Kngineers, 9 Pleasant street, Baltimore, Md. The outer 
envelope must be ?<o indorsed as to indicate twfore being opened the particular work for 
which the bid Is made. 

23. The I'nited States reserves the right to reject any aod all bids, and to waive any 
informality In the bid- received : also to disregard the bid of any falling bidder or con- 
tractor known as such to the Enyineer IVpartment. 

142 



3 

44. The bidder to whom award 1* made will be required lit enter Into written contract 
with the I'nlted States, with good and approved security, In as amount of two thousand 
dollar* within ten ( K> days after being notified of the acceptance of his pMporal. 

2fl. The contract whirh the bidder and guarantors promise to enter Into shall be. hi lt< 
general provisions, In the form adopted and In me by the Engineer Department or the 
Army, blank fornix of whirh ra.ii be inspected at this office, and will be furnished if desired 
to |»rtles projtoslng to put in bids. Parties making bids are to lie understood a- accepting 
the terms and rendition* rontaiue«l In uneh form of rontrart. 

•-Hi. The sureties ure to make and siilisrrilie affidavits of justification on the l*rk of 
the l«»nd to the contract, and they uiust Jointly Justify in double the amount of the penalty. 

27. Midden* »n- invited to lie present at the opening of the bids*. 

CENEKAL CONDITIONS. 

'2*. A ropy of thl* advertisement, specification* and instructions will lie attached to 
the contract, and fonu a part of it. 

2J». The contractor should, within ten day*, fnun the award of the contract, furnish- . 
the office with the po-t-oiflce address to whi<-h communications should be sent. 

*'. Transfer* of contract*, or of interests in contracts, are prohibited by law. 

.SI. The contractor will not lie allowed to take advantage of any error or omission in 
these specifications, as full instructions will always be given should such ermr or omission 

be discovered. 

32. The decision of the Engineer Officer in charge as to quality and quantity shall 
be final. 

33. It is understood and agreed that the quantities given are approximate only, ant! 
it must be understood that no claim shall be made against the I Hi ted States on account ot 
any excess or deficiency, absolute or relative, in the same. Bidders are expected to exam 
ine the drawings, and are invited to make the estimate of quantities for themselves. 

34. Payments will be made monthly. A percentage of ten i !<•< |>er centum will be 
retained from each payment until the completion of the contract. 

3A. Should the time for the completion of the contract be extended, all expenses for 
imqiection and superintendence durln - the period of the extension, the same to be deter- 
mined by the Engineer Officer in charge, shall be deducted from payments due or t. 
become doe to the contractor; Provided, hmoerrr, that if the party of the first part shall. 
in the exercise of his discretion, because of freshet.-, ice, or other force or violence of the 
elements, allow the contractor additional time in writing as provided for in the form •■! 
contract, there shall be no deduction for the expenses for inspection and superintendence 
for such additional time so allowed; Provided, fuflhtt , that nothing in these specifica- 
tions shall affect the power of the party of the first part to annul the contract as provide*' 
for in the form of contract adopted and in use by the Engineer iWqartuient of the Army. 

SPECIAL HESCUIPTIOX. 

36. It is understood and agreed that the contractor must carry on the work iu sucl 
order of precedence as the Engineer may direct, and that the Engineer shall have th~ 
right at any time to make such changes in the pNns as he may deem necessary, and 
further, that the contractor shall have or make no claim atrainst the I'nited States on 
account thereof. 

• I". GENERALLY.— it is proiiosed to build, a* shown on drawing exhibited iu the 
I'nited States Engineer Office, !• I'leasaut street. Maltimore. a protection or sea-wall on tit.- 
north front of the Reservation at Port Mcllenry and make repairs hereafter described 
The wall is to be four feet thick at base, three feet at top. and will be carried to the same 
height as the wall, of which it will forma prolongation, viz.. five and nineteen hundredth- 
(5.1&I feet above mean low water to top of coping. It will be founded on a bed of riprap 
stone, the top -urface to be at the level of mean low water. 



143 



.». MASONRY.— The wall will be constructed of sound gneiss or granite, well- 
shaped stone*, of not lens than Ij Inches rise //•■««/ <t ft/ic* (except for leveling up>. well- 
bonded, and having through headers for every nix square feet of fare ar»*a. stone In l»e 
laid dry to within ulmut two feet of the lower fare of tin' riming, beyond which it will he 
t»edded In rement mortar ntme a* for raping. The heavier -«tone will be laid in the I >wer 
courses tnd the whole will form what I- known a* flr-t-c ln_n* nibble maxunr)'. The ireneral 
character of the wall will 1m- similar to that recently constructed (Hi the south •* i < 1«* of the 
Reservation. 

.19. COPING — The coping will be six Inches thick and three feet wide, in Hot lew 
than fonr foot lengths, hammer-drensed on top face and close Jointed at right angles to face 
of wall. It will be set In a heavy !**d of hydraul.c cement, to be approved by the Kngl- 
neer in charge, mixed with twice its volume of clean, sharp sand. 

-M>. KII'-KAP.— Will Include rip-rap stone, the removal of three wrecks at an.. neat_- 
the line of the proponed wall ; the excavation of nil trenches, and the entire preparation 
of the bed to receive the wall. 

41. KIP-RAP STOJfK.- The riprap will bo of sound hard stone ringing from about 
one hundred and fifty pounds in weight to sms.ll spalls of two or three pounds. 

The bed will be laid nine feet wide at the top, in no ca«e less than two feet deep, and 
sloping off to the ground at u natural slope of about one on one. When the ground is not 
suSciently low to permit the full depth of two feet !>ein>,' laid, a trench of rectangular 
section will be excavated at the contractor'* own cost, to enable the required two feet to 
be laid. The top surface of the bed will be properly leveled to receive the wall. 

42. WRECKS.— There are three wreck* near the line of the proposed wall which will 
l>e entirely removed to the level of the ground and from the vicinity by the contractor. 

tt. FILLING.— Will include oyster shell filling, earth filling, the planting r.f treets 
the sowing of gram seed, and the repair and continuation of all drain- through the pro- 
poned wall, wlione discharge is interfered with. 

44. OYSTER SHELLS -Throughout Its entire length the spare immediately back of 
the wall is to be filled with good clean oyster shells to about three feet above -mean low 
water, and extending back at the top for a distance of about three feet from the wall, 
thence sloping off at the natural nlope. The fill of oyster shells may at the option of the 
engineer be extended to other part* of the area to be filled. 

\r>. EARTH FILLING. —The space back of the sea-wall, an shown on drawings 
exhibited in thin office, or such part thereof an the engineer may designate, will be filled 
to the height of about five feet above mean low water in rear, and sloped off to about four 
feet above mean low water at the wall ; with good clean earth to be well settled in place, to 
the satlnfactlon of the engineer. The top surface of this fill for the depth <>f about one foot 
must be of good rich soil, and sown with a good grade of grass need by the contractor. 
Where the wall in built on dry ground, the earth in front of the wall will be excavated to 
the level of mean low water, and this excavated material used for filling in behind. 
This material will be paid for as •• Fill." 

46. TREES.— About thirty yonag poplar trees or such other kind as the engineer may 
approve will be planted by the contractor along the pro|K>ned sea-wall front, to the satis- 
faction of the engineer. 

47. DRAINS. — The contractor will be required to extend through the proponed wall 
the drain* or sewers whose discharge had been interfered with. The pipe must be of the 
beet quality double-strength vitrified culvert pipe of the name diameter an the drain- to 
which they are joined. They will be properly jointed in the wall with iron pipe, and the 
whole to be properly caulked with hydraulic cement and laid to the satisfaction of the 
engineer. Any broken parts of the existlnir drains will be repaired by the contractor. 

Near the west end of the wall an opening about four feet wide and extending down to 
about the level of mean low water will be left as a drain until the earth fill back of the 
wall shall have progre s sed to the satisfaction of the engineer, when he will authorize its 
pro|H»r closing. *o that It will, when closed, be of the same character as the adjac.-nt wall. 

144 



4H. FINALLY.— The whole work is to be completed In strong, neat and workmanlike 
manner, and in accordance with the evident Intent and meaning of thl- specification. 

49. BIDDERS TO VISIT TIIK SITK. Et«\— It is ex|iected that each i>erson bidding 
will visit the site of the proposed! wall and the I'nlted States engineer's office, and ascer- 
tain the nature and general character of the work to »*• i»erformed. and all information 
necessary to enable him to make an intelligent proposal. 

50. The contractor will l>« allowed, without cost, to use such of the stone "f the old 
-ea-wall a- may i>e suitable in buildiiur the n«*w out*. 

MEASUREMENT OF WtiKK. 

51. MASONRY.- Masonry will l»e measured by the cubic content- of the wall in 
place, built in accordance with these specification*. Masonry will not include coping. 

COPINf j. — Coping will be measured in place by the 1 inear foot. 

RIP-RAP.— Rip-Rap will be measured by eros-s section taken l>efore and after it i* 
de|>osited. No allowance will be made for settlement. 

FILL. — Fill will either be measured in carts wluw cubic contents have been previ- 
ously determined under the direction of the engineer, or. if brought in scows, by the cubic 
contents of the space that it occupies on the scow. 

"»2. RIDS. — ilids must state in letters and figures : 

( 1 ) Price per cubic yard for masonry in place. 

1 2) Price per linear foot for coping in place. 

(3) Price per cubic yard for rip nip in place. 

1 4) Price per cubic yard for oyster shell filling in place. 

to) Price per cubic yard for earth filling' in place. 

Mil Time of commencement and completion of work. 

•*>3. The contractor will be required at his own expense, before the final payment for 
the work, to repair and put in same order and condition as before he commences operations, 
all wharves, roads and parts of the ground or reservation used or occupied by him duriiur 
the progress of the work 

54. QUANTITIES. — The estimated quantities i which may l>e in increased or dimin- 
ished) are: 

2,400 cubic yards of rip rap. 
•'W;l cubic yards of masonry. 
•»55 linear feet of coping. 
•>6(> cubic yards of oyster shell filling. 
:*.(»,(N>0 cubic yards of earth filling. 

•'»•"». The engineer, at bis discretion, may require the dismissal of any incompetent, 
insubordinate or disorderly person employed, who shall not again be connected with the 
work. 



145 



li 



PROPOSAL. 



. 1896. 
To Col. PETER C. HAINS. 

Corps of Engineers U S A.. 

9 Pleasant Street. Baltimore Md 

Sn: — 

In accordance with your atlverti.««eiii!*iit of luly 17. is!»i», invitinc propo.-al> for l»uildiii_- 
sea-wall, etc., at I'ort Mcllenry, und subject to all the condition* and requirement.- thereof, 
and of your specification- of same date, copies of both of which are hereto attached, and >■• 
lar a> they relate t • tlii- proposal are made a ]>art of it. I or we \ iropiwe u> do the work ;tt 
the follow ■inir prices : 

I.' ip-rap in |daee, for |»er '*ubii a yard. 

Masonry in |dace. lor [>»*r »-u 1 ii «• yard. 

( opiiiLT in pla« .for per linear loot. 

< >y*ter >hell filling in place, for per cubic yard. 

Karth fllliu* in place, for per cubic yard. 

I .or u e will commence on 

I <>r we will complete t he work by 

I for we) make this proposal with n full knowledge n| the work. and. if the pn>|«»-.il 

- accepted, will, after receiviut: writ 'en notice of such acceptance, enter into contra'-: 

within ten days thereafter with (fond and sufficient sureties tor Ihe faithful | crforiuntnv 

thereof. 

Wrrxi —I > : fSn.s \n i:r. | 

|Ai.|.i:k-.| 
j>H.N.\TI i:i..] 



146 



GUARANTEE. 

We 

of .in the Count) of 

and State of . and , of 

. in the County of nnd State of 

. hereby undertake tli.it if the bid of 
herewith accompanying, dated I"*' 1 "', 

for work nt Fort Mel I en ry, Md. 



be accepted as to any or all of the items of supplies, material,., and services proposed to 
be furnished thereby, or as to any portion of the same, within sixty days from the date of 
the opening of proposals therefor, the said bidder 

will, within ten days after notice of such acceptance, enter into a contract witli the proper 
officer of the I'uitcd States to furnish such articles of supplies and materials and such 
services of those proposed to l>e furni-hed by said bid as shall be accepted, at the price- 
offered by said bid nnd in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement 
iuvitiiur said proposals, and will jrive bond with jrood and sufficient sureties for the faith- 
ful and proper fulfillment of such contract. And we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, 
and administrators, jointly and severally, to pay to the United States, in case the said bidder 
shall fail to enter into such contract or irive such liond within ten days after said notice 
of acceptance, the difference in money between the amount of the bid of said bidder 
on the articles or services so accepted and the amount for which the pro|»er officer of the 
United States may contract with another i»arty to furnish said article-* and services, if the 
latter amount be in excess of the former. 

(^iven under our hands and seal- this day <>f 

eighteen hundred ami ninety- 
I it presence of — 

as to 

a- to 

Alli\ ;i.l!n»l\i -i .1. 

State ok 



Count;/ of ^ 



I . <>ne of the guarantors named in the 

foregoing guaranty, do swear that 1 am pecuniarily worth the sum of two thousand 
dollars over and above all my debts and liabilities. 

Subscribed and -worn to before ine this day of 

. !*«!■ . at 

147 



State ok | 

Ml : 

County »f S 

I, mi? of the guarantor* named Id tbe 

foregoing guaranty, do rwctr that 1 aw pecuniarily worth the Mini of two thousand 
Julian over and above all my debt* and liabilities 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this rlny of 

, l«i» , at 

I, , do hereby certify that 

and . the guarantor above named, 

j>erwonally known to me, and tliat, to the l>e*t of my knowledge and InMief, is 

i*MMiniarily worth, over and above all his debts and liabilities, tbe sum stated In tlie 
accompanying affidavit subscribed by him. 

1, do hereby rertify that 

, tn* guarantor above atantL, is personally knows to 
we, and that tbe bent of my knowledge and belief, ke I* pecuniarily worth, over and above 
all bis debts and liabilities, tbe mini stated in the accompanying affidavit subscribed 
by him. 

1 Tbe <«ib to be taken before a notary public or Mime otber officer havlnc n**er*l Minority t" ••Imiairtcl 
oath*. If tbe onVer ha* an official »«-»] it mun be »ft1\<-.|, otlteraix tin- pro|>er i 1 1 i li ■! i a* to bit official char- 
acter mual lie fnraiibed 

1 Thl* certlltcate to be by a Jodfe or clerk of a lnile-1 State* ronrt. a I'nlted States <1l»tnot attorili > . I nitrcl 
State* cofaniUaluner. or a incite or clerk of a Htati court of n-cor.l wltb tbe veal of aaiJ coart attarhttf li tin' 
sn. m\ can make tbe eaftlflcate a* to lioth i-orette*. It will not be nerv*aary to fill out tbe next form below . 

1 He or each. 



148 







ynz/»7 T**>V ~>*V*2> tyyS* J£P~~<> irrrryy// Y^^V 






-rtAjyiy^ -™™ (A? -w^y (*■? ~y "-«£> 






5 ■? / 

4 4 



149 



*-cts,J£,/V* Joo 



<><•* 



S?*p<r~4> ^AjZ&c*^ tf-jo ' 



MjLJLt q^tti ***** ) 






7Ds?-r2E- 



*f<? 



3J-. 



<?<y. .yyr/rzf+s. 



yp^M/r^TS 



ay • 
*7 

3/ ^ 



/ 
i 

y 

j 






<£*£** cjl f72V.i& 



- ■ »» , t . u r- 



/ 74 27 

^ / ?• o 

.2 3 frT? 

5 r^xe 



/ 7 ?/*/ 






I&, G 3 6. I* 



to^ 



/ 



1,1 *\* 

: 6 * « 






/ 



J -3- -*.. / O 






150 



nil 



■ ■ ■ ■ ■ -ji 



(&£ ooi<Uc ' <£» &S >*/* >* >£fc^ *^ 



ififi&m 


fat*. 0?*9*4£0f. 


&uAu££fA'4/p } /M« *•**< £*. 


o'-t/6 


/&.Y/*' 


if. & 2s £ctyfi> 




<2,0-t-Jj£o 


*/.?*' 

4*."' 




- 




a/.*" 7 


J.Z. *fO t 




So'+fo 


*v,3*' 


3,f.</o« 






**.«-"' 


IJ./O * 




/*e'f /** 


if.t"' 


>f.4T • 




§ 


<fl.t"' 


3 Z.</ t 




W0+/A0 


99' 7$-°' 


3*./ " 






rs:$r a ' 


V/3 f 






r?./r a ' 


V3. J * 




£*»'«•?*• 


64 -V"' 


V 77 * 




-*»o #*«•/< 


7*7*' 


4n*.a * 






?*•*'[ 


<T37© • 






U-s" 


J^^.^" • 








4TA *» * 




jlo'*3w 


6/-0"' 


4T,/* 




3#*+3G* 


6-f.<tf° 


4//.0* 






«&ir"' 


33.3 s 






ya/.f 

> — ^^ 





151 




152 




153 



ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 



HISTORICAL AND ARCH EOLOGI CAL RESEARCH PROJECT (HARP) 
MATERIALS 

Manuscript 

Record Group-77, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Letters Sent, 
1812-1872, Letters Received, Orderly Books, Annual Reports to the 
Secretary of War, (including Report of the Chief of Engineers), "SPLOE," 
Buell's Collection, Engineer Historical Papers, 1800-1819, Reports, "FB," 
"BDO," Land Papers [?]. 

Record Group-92, Office of the Quartermaster General, Consolidated 
Correspondence File. 

Record Group-94, Adjutant General's Office, Correspondence, FM, 
1927-1937. 

Record Group-107, Office of the Chief of Engineers, "SC FT-MC," 
1811-1837; Office of the Secretary of War, Letters Received. 

Record Group-159, Office of the Inspector General, Letters Received, 
1866-1889. 



Microfilm 

Reel 16, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Selected Correspondence Relating to Fort McHenry, 
Maryland, 1811-1837. 

Reel 24, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Selected pages from Letters to Officers of Engineers, 
July 4, 1812 - February 20, 1869. 

Reel 35, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Fortifications Branch, Letters Received, 1878-1886. 

Reel 42, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Selected Documents from Fortifications, Miscellaneous 
Reports, Baltimore District Office, 1884-1906. 

National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Selected Documents from Fortifications, 
Miscellaneous Reports, Baltimore District Office. 

Reel 45, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Adjutant General, Medical History, Post of Fort McHenry. 



155 



Reel 46, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Selected Letters received relating to Fort McHenry, 
Maryland 1852-1876. 

Reel 49, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, 1847-1906, General Correspondence, Letters Sent, 
July 8, 1863 - May 24, 1867. 

Reel 53, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Miscellaneous Letters Received, May 1877 - May 1905. 

Reel 56, National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, District Engineer Office, Baltimore, Maryland, 
1847-1906, Fort McHenry Correspondence, Letters Sent, December 15, 
1884 - June 30, 1894 (no. 2). 

National Archives, Records of the War Department, Office of the 
Chief of Engineers, Letters Sent, Baltimore District Office, Fort 
McHenry Correspondence, December 22, 1869 - December 2, 1881, 
December 15, 1884 - February 28, 1898. 

The HARP materials provided almost all of the data for this historic 
structure report. The War Department, Office of the Chief of Engineers 
records provided not only details of correspondence but of construction 
as well. The microfilm proved especially useful, because a lot of the 
material had not been copied and placed into the HARP binders. As 
stated in the introduction, there are limitations to the use of the HARP 
materials because of limited cross referencing and indexing, and 
undecipherable citations or text. 



Fort McHenry Files 1933-1984 

These files, arranged chronologically in binders alongside the HARP 
binders, provided data on the National Park Service's management of the 
fort and seawall. 



OTHER MATERIALS 

Article 

"Plan of Fort McHenry." Maryland Historical Magazine , 8 (1913), pp. 
288-290. 

This article provided Major John Jacob Ulrich Rivardi's 1794 description of 
water damage to Whetstone Point. 



156 



Book 

Kanarek, Harold. The Mid-Atlantic Engineers : A History of the 
Baltimore District , U.S . Army Corps of Engineers , 1774-1974 . 
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office [1979?]. 

This text provided data on Fort McHenry's early construction history. 

Reports 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Historic 
Structure Report, Fort McHenry Historical and Architectural Data, Fort 
McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Maryland." by Ervin N. 
Thompson and Robert D. Newcomb, Denver, October, 1974. 

The Thompson text is a history of Fort McHenry's structures and 
fortifications. It provided the context within which to place the seawall 
history. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Archeological 
Investigations at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine 
1978, 1980" Vol. I by Bryan L. Aivazian and Louise Schmidlap, Vol. II by 
William Stokinger, Patricia Rubertone, and Lawrence E. Babits, Denver, 
July 1982. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Historic 
Structures Report, Part I, Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic 
Shrine, Historical Data Section." by George J. Svejda, Washington, D.C., 
June 1969. 

Both the Aivazian, et. al. and Svejda reports provided background 
information about Fort McHenry's history and placement of structures. 



Pamphlet 

"Estimated Cost of Restoration of Fort McHenry" [c. 1925], Fort McHenry 
Vertical File, Maryland Collection, Enoch Pratt Free Library, Baltimore, 
Maryland . 

This pamphlet provided data on the physical state of the seawall, c. 1925. 



157 



PERSONS CONSULTED DURING RESEARCH 

S. Sydney Bradford, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

Susan Long, Historical Architect, National Park Service, Falls Church, 
Virginia 

John H. McGarry, Baltimore, Maryland 

William Stokinger, Boston, Massachusetts 

Erwin N. Thompson, Lakewood, Colorado 



REPOSITORIES VISITED DURING RESEARCH 

Baltimore, Maryland 

Enoch Pratt Free Library 
Maryland Collection 
Vertical Files 

Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine 
Fort McHenry Files 

Historical and Archeological Research Project (HARP) Files 
Map Files 
Photograph Files 

Maryland Historical Society 
Prints and Photographs 
Vertical Files 

Lakewood, Colorado 

Rocky Mountain Regional Office Library 



159 



HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT 

Architectural Data 

Seawall 



FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE 

Maryland 



Prepared by 
Susan Long 



161 



III. EXISTING CONDITIONS 

A. Historic Appearance 

Historically the seawall was a dry laid wall constructed of 
granite and sandstone. Rubble, rock-faced, or dressed stone was used 
for the base of the wall and topped with a capstone. The seawall retains 
its historic configuration and appearance, although there have been some 
changes to the wall. The wall has been pointed in some areas and riprap 
has been placed in front of parts of the wall. 

B . Existing Conditions 

The seawall lies on the perimeter of Fort McHenry National 
Monument and Historic Shrine and is approximately 3,770 feet long. The 
seawall has been totally recorded photographically, and existing condition 
documents (33 sheets) are available from the Technical Information 
Center, Denver Service Center. (Dwgs. 346/25004). (Please refer to 
these documents for the location of station points noted in this 
narrative.) As already discussed in the history section of this report, 
the wall was constructed in phases beginning in 1816 and ending in 1897. 
It should be noted as documented on the drawings that the wall was built 
of several types and finishes of stone. 

C . Present Conditions 

In keeping with the objectives of the task directive to record 
the existing conditions of the wall and make recommendations for its 
rehabilitation, the causes of failure of the wall will be discussed. A wide 
range of experts (see individuals and offices consulted) on seawalls with 
varied backgrounds and expertise have been consulted by this office. All 
of these experts have agreed on the causes of the deterioration of the 
seawall . 

The seawall is a dry laid gravity wall. The stones are laid in 
an interlocking pattern and topped with a large capstone which functions 
to hold the small interlocking stones below it in place. Thus, the wall is 
designed to function as a massive unit which, when intact, is able to 
resist the extreme force of waves hitting it. 



163 



As already mentioned, the location of the seawall makes it 
subject to severe wave action from both passing boat traffic and storms. 
In a storm the waves reach a maximum height of 5-1/2 feet. It should be 
noted that this is higher than the seawall. As the waves hit and scour 
the seawall, water passes through the joints between the stones and flush 
soil from behind the wall causing voids behind the wall and the collapse 
of fill and grass into the voids. This effect is most obvious from Station 
10 + 06 through Station 18 + 47.00 (see photographs 1 and 2 and 
figure 1). Once the confining soil behind the wall is lost the capstone 
becomes unstable and wave action is able to lift the capstone. The 
capstones are displaced and eventually toppled into the harbor (see 
photograph 3 and figure 2). With the capstone removed the wall no 
longer acts as a massive unit and begins to unravel (see photograph 3). 
Although this is happening along the entire length of the seawall it is 
most obvious from Station 10 + 00.00 through Station 18 + 48.77 because 
there is no riprap to break the impact of the waves and this section of 
wall is subject to extreme wave action. 

From Station 18 + 48.77 to Station 22 + 84.09 the capstones are 
displaced and the lower third of the wall protrudes 6 inches to 1 foot 6 
inches beyond the upper portion of the wall (see photographs 5, 6, 
and 7). The condition of the wall at this point is unknown. Further 
testing should be performed to determine the profile of the wall in this 
section. The protrusion of the lower stones could be the historic 
configuration of the wall (see figure 3); however, it is more probable that 
it is the result of the force of water and plastic soil pushing against the 
wall. Thus the stones at the base of the wall are being pushed out of 
place, making the wall structurally unstable (see figure 4). (For 
amendment to this report, see Appendix A, the archeological 
investigations and comments.) 

From Station 22 + 4.09 to Station 32 + 3.74 the wall is not 
riprapped. Although fill is still being leached from behind the wall, 
riprap protects the wall from harsh wave action, thus the wall is stable. 



164 



From Station 32 + 07.74 to Station 47 + 55.13 the wall is not 
riprapped and the stones below mean low water are displaced and missing. 
However, this section of wall is not subject to extreme wave action and 
thus remains stable. 



PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM 

A . Alternative "A" - No treatment 

If the seawall is not repaired in the next few years entire 
sections of the seawall will be lost, resulting in the need for complete 
reconstruction of the wall in order to protect the point from erosion. 

B . Alternative "B" - Pump grout the wall 

Pump grouting would stop water from penetrating the wall and 
pulling out the fill. 

It is not the recommended alternative because the seawall has 
stood as a dry laid wall for over a hundred years and pump grouting the 
wall would change the functioning of the entire wall system and could 
cause the wall to become structurally unstable. Additionally, it would 
also change the historic appearance of the wall and the cost is prohibitive 
($700 a linear foot). 

C. Alternative "C" - Place riprap in front of the wall 

This alternative changes the historic appearance of the wall and 
does not actually address the causes of deterioration of the seawall. 
Riprap also carries the hidden maintenance cost of cleaning debris from 
the riprap. 

D. Alternative "D" - Preferred alternative - Place filter fabric and 
gravel behind wall; reset capstones and pin in place 

This alternative has many advantages. The work would not 
change the historic or function of the wall system or the appearance. It 
directly addresses the reason for the walls deterioration and the most 



165 



economical method of repairing the wall. Placing filter fabric and gravel 
behind the wall will stop the leaching of soil from behind the wall. Using 
epoxy and pinning the capstones in place will tie the wall together 
causing it to act as a massive unit as historically designed and prevent 
waves from moving the capstones. This is the method of stabilization 
recommended by the Corps of Engineers, Baltimore office, after physically 
inspecting the seawall (see figure 5). 

E . Multiphase Work Program 

In the event funding presents a problem the rehabilitation work 
on the seawall has been divided into three phases. The three phases 
citing work to be done are as follows: 

1. Phase 2 " Al1 rehabilitation work from Station 10 + 00 through 18 
+ 48.77. The work in this length of wall consists of placing filter fabric 
and gravel behind the wall, resetting displaced existing stones or 
replacing missing and broken stones and placing stainless steel pins to tie 
the capstones and the block wall together. 

2. Phase 2 - All rehabilitation work from Station 18 + 48.77 through 
Station 22 + 84.09. As previously discussed in the existing conditions 
section of this historic structure report, the condition of the seawall is 
unknown in this section. Upon further investigation, if it is found that 
the lower portion of the wall has been pushed out, the wall will have to 
be dismantled and rebuilt before filter fabric and gravel are placed 
behind the wall and the capstones are reset and pinned in place. (For 
amendment to this report, see Appendix A, the archeological 
investigations and comments.) 

3. Phase 3 - All rehabilitation work from Station 32 + 03.74 
through 38 + 59.35. All missing stones shall be replaced using existing 
or replacement stones. All broken capstones shall be replaced and 
grouted and epoxied in place. 



166 



F. Impact Analysis 

Fort McHenry is listed on the National Register of Historic 
Places and, therefore, implementation of the recommendations in this 
report will require compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act. 

The work proposed for the seawall at Fort McHenry would help 
preserve the historic scene at Fort McHenry and the Baltimore Harbor. 
It would retard deterioration of the seawall, and preserve the historic 
fabric and site. 

Applying the criteria of effect, 36 CFR Part 800. 3[a], it is 

determined that the work would have an effect on the structure. 

However, applying the criteria of adverse effect, 36 CFR Part 800. 3[b], 
it is determined that the effect would not be adverse: 

1. The proposed work would not result in the destruction of 
significant features of the property. The existing fabric would not be 
significantly changed or destroyed by stabilization of the structure. 

2. The proposed work would not isolate the structure from the 
surrounding environment or alter the surrounding environment. Rather, 
it would preserve the historic scene. 

3. The proposed work would not introduce visual, audible, or 
atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter 
its setting. 

4. The proposed work would not result in the transfer, sale, 
deterioration, or destruction of federally-owned property. 

This action may be excepted from compliance with Executive 
Orders 11988, "Floodplain Management," and 11990, "Protection of 
Wetlands" by applying the criteria in Section 5B3 of the NPS Floodplain 
Management and Wetland Protection Guidelines. This section identifies as 



167 



excepted actions those which are functionally dependent upon water, and 
for which there is no practicable alternative site outside the floodplain. 

Compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act was 
completed with the May 19, 1982 signing of the Finding of No Significant 
Impact (FONSI) on the Fort McHenry Resources Management Plan, which 
addressed the environmental effects of repair and rehabilitation of the 
seawall . 



168 



o 



CM 00 O O v- 

r~- r- ^ en oo 


LO 

lo 


t- O O 
00 O LO 


o o 

^J- CO 


m 

CO 


CM 
00 




CM 

en 


CM 
00 


O 

o 


to 00 P0 CNJ CD 

co co o c\j "3- 


00 
00 
CM 


CO O CO 

en o en 

t— LO lO 


r- CM 

r- en 
LD en 


CO 

o 
<* 


CM 
O 
CM 


CM 
CM 


LD 

oo 


to 

oo 


00 
CM 


cn co r- o c\j 
oo 


T ~ 


CM CM LO 
CM 


<=t 00 
CM 


CM 
LD 


CM 
CO 


CO 

— 


LD 

O 
CM 


LO 
00 
CM 





■w- 



tfl- 



• 




CD 


c 




u 


o 




jD 


'+-> 




a 


(T3 






4- 




c 


c 




c 


L. 






o 




a 


4- 






OJ 
T5 


r^- 


c 

CD 


CD 


r- 


£ 


CO 


> 


0) 
JO. 


+ 


X 

o 

a 

QJ 


"O 


00 




D 




■o 


O 




c 


-C 




0j 


to 


o 


Ifl 


CO 


o 


QJ 


0) 


+ 


C 


o 




o 


c 


o 


Ifl 


CD 

o 


c 


a 

CD 

U 


— 


o 




< 


4J 


— 




CD 






4-> 


1_ 




L0 


■o 


00 






CX) 
CD 


"fD 


3 




$ 


CD 




CD 


Z 


c 


CD 




,— 


cO 


"0 


cd 
T5 


s_ 


C 


CD 


CD 





E 


a 

CD 


CD 


cu 


— 


i_ 




QJ 


0) 


1 


> 


s 




fU 




> 


J_ 


CO 


s_ 


O) 


a) 


c 




■M 


CI) 


"O 


CD 

£ 


X 
u 


c 

CD 


CO 


2 


J= 


cd 


■M 


o 


CD 


O 


u 


co 


u_ 




cu 




s_ 


jz 


1 


Qj 


h 




fJ 




T— 


i^ 


<d 

4-J 


CD 

co 

03 


CD 
U 


o 


£ 


CD 


z 


a. 


CL 



3 

ol 

UJ 



LL >" LL >■ LL 

_i u en u _i 


> 

en 


LL 




o en co o o 
oo co cm ^r o 


00 

* — 


CD O O 

lo o en 


CO 

00 


O 00 00 00 


CM 


CM O CM 
00 o 


rr 



c 
11 

o 



o 



CM 



00 O O LT) 

O O O CO 



LO LO 



LL > > LL 


> 


LL 


JU U _i 


LO 


_l "- 


r^ o lo o r^ 


LO 


^ 


r^ lo oo lo r- 


00 


r- U o 

CO 


oo r^ oo r- oo 


LO 


oo o • 


rr oo <cr cd t 


CO 


<3" O '3" 


00 CO CM CO CO 


LO 


oo oo lo 


r- *T r- 







en 






U 



u 



r- 



eo 



CM 
LO 



CO 



CM 



>- 

u 


LL 

_l 


LL 

u 




CM 
CM 


LO o o 
rf O ID 


O 
00 


O 
O 


LO 


t- lo r^ 
r- cd 


CM 


o 

' — 



CO 


LO 


00 


00 


h> 


CD 





















C 




i 

r 






















OJ 






L. 






c 

o 












a; 


c 




CD 

U1 


OJ 






■M 
ID 










8° 

CD _Q 
^cd 


QJ C 


c 




4-J 


!_ 


c 
o 
V-> 

CD 
> 

CD 

U 


0) 

c 
5 


> 
TO 

u 
X 

CD 

~C 
C 


4- 

u 


mpaction 
psoil and 


OJ 

Cb 

(0 


4-1 

O 

u 

L. 
OJ 


ping ston 
tting (sto 


CD 

G! 

C 

1/1 

/ 


1_ 
L 


QJ 

c 

re 


"3 

OJ 

CO 

10 
10 
QJ 


X 


<TJ 


(0 


CO 


o o 




— 


° S_ 


O Q) 


O 


(_ 




UJ 


z 


I 


DQOh 




LX. 


OUcO 




S Q 





c c 

o3 o 

u *-> 

L. fD 

QJ ^Z 



o 

h 



c 

Qj 

o . 

L. 4-> 

OJ c 

a o 
u 

LO 



a 

C 
03 



169 



I/) 


CO CM O UO CD 

f n i- i/3 cn 


^r cm oo 

^ CD 00 


OO UO 
CM CM 


O 


00 


uo 


uo 


CM 


o 
o 


o 
U 


i- in O) <J) in 

O M M^30 

r^- ^ co o oo 


^ OO OO 

uo cm r- 
oinui 


UO uo 

uo t 
oo cx» 


00 

uo 


CD 

oo 
o 


o 

*3- 
OO 


oo 
uo 


CM 

uo 


00 
CM 


— 


«* «* «* ** 


•^ «*. •«. 


«*. 


«* 


■h 


■k 


-V 


<*. 




03 

o 


<3" CD C\J r- 
UO 


<- r- IT) 


CM 


I — 


oo 

00 


00 

oo 


CM 


oo 

CM 




«* 








*«■ 




r " 


*~ 





(/> 




OO <D 




O C 




• o 




^ -M 




co f 




a 




+ 03 




u 




CM 




CM — 




l '£ 




Q 




h- 




r^ 




oo aJ 




^ c 




o 




+ ■*-" 




i/) 




00 




r- T5 




0) 




co x: 




c 1/3 




O D 




'■P h 




03 O 




+-> 




01 T> 




C 




" 03 




= u 








S * 




CO 




s_ 




S- CD 




— +-> 




03 — 




at 




oj 




or: "O 




T3 

I 03 


01 

u 

03 


>"0 


a 


5- C 




C 03 


c 


OJ 




I ^ 




u £ 


c 


^ § 


a 


•t-> 




Fort 
caps 


~ 


c 


itj 




>« 


co 


X 


^J £ 


o 


+3 


a 


CD *_> 


CD 


10 0) 




01 l/> 


T3 


.C OJ 


c 



3 



> 



c 

(TJ 



o_ a: 03 



u_ . u_ >■ u_ 


LL LL 


_i > CO U _l 


> -J U 


U 


CO 


O CD O O 


o o 


co oo cm ^r o 


00 uo uo 


. CO . . . 


t — 


O • 00 00 


• OO CM 


r- OO r- 


CM O 



o 
o 



uo 



o 
uo 



o o 
o uo 



cm r»» 

CD 



> LL > 

U CO u 


CO U 


CM CO CM CO CM 
OO CM OO CM OO 


OO CM uo 

cd oo r- 


UO 1— T- T- UO 

00 "3" r- ^r oo 

^ r- co r~- ^r 

rfvir 


oo uo r- 

CO 00 uo 



u u 

co o 

oo oo 

^r cm 



uo 
co 



oo 






U 

o 
oo 

CM 



LL LL 

U U 

o o 

oo uo 

uo r^ 

o co 

CM 00 



CD 



CM 

uo 



CO 



CM 



o 
o 



o 

CM 

CM 







c 
















c 






o 
















- 




















0) 




















CD 


c 


5 


c 




> 

•V 




c 
o 


T3 

c 




■>-> 


c 

C 


a 

o 


CD 
C 


o 




u 




ra 




o 


1/1 


u 


1 — 






X 




^ 














<T3 
> 
'13 


c 


113 




u 
a 




03 


T3 


(J 

L 

a) 


C7; 
c 


0) 

c 


a> 
C 
o 


u 


5 


c 


u 


E 


Q 



U1 


a 


—J 
4-1 


*-> 
If) 


K 


rtj 


•~0 


ra 


o 


O 




~ 


o 


u 





en 
c 

._ 03 

X £ 



1/3 

C 



C c 
V o 

U -M 
L- 03 

°- c 



IICQUh llUcO 






o 
h 



c 




c 


Li 


CLi 




0) 




u 




o 


a 


L 


— 


L 


r 


a 


C 


ai 


01 


Ll 


o 


a 






u 




o 


.JO 




,n 





170 





m 


o 


o 


CO 


o 


CM 


,— 


CO 


CD 


00 


O 


o 


CO 




00 


o 


o 


r>> 


o 


O 


O 


I s * 


CD 


00 


ID 


en 


r-- 


o 


o 


o 


LD 


oo 


<* 


<3" 


o 


CD 


00 


T — 


eg 


r^ 


CM 


U 


t — 


00 


CD 


LD 


m 


CM 


m 


00 


r-« 


<3- 


o 


* — 


^1" 




r- 


o 


*— 


I — 


o 


"t 


o 


o 


CD 


r-* 


1 — 


LD 


00 


— 


■». 


«. 


«* 


*. 


** 


V. 


»». 


K 


V. 


«•, 




•^ 




IB 


h« 


oo 


r-- 


(0 


CD 


00 


CO 


a> 


o 


LD 


CD 


r*. 


CM 


+J 




CD 


r*. 




1 — 






CD 


LD 


00 


r-« 


00 




O 






cd 












00 


CD 


o 


CM 




\- 


■tfl- 
















to- 




•> 


»> 





1/1 



CD 


£ 




O 


4-1 




<tf 


r ^- 




00 


01 




+ 


C 




CM 

CM 

i 


E 
i_ 

CD 

■M 


cd 

Q. 




■D 


C0 


00 


o 


O 


<s- 






+ 
co 

CO 


"a 

CD 

"a 
<d 
oj 

c 


> 

CD 

a 

CU 

■M 


C 




ai 


o 


c 


E 




o 




4-> 




4-1 


<U 


+J 


in 


4-> 


ro 


OJ 


LO 


0) 






4J 


CD 


' 


in 


CD 




a> 


to 


^— 


> 




CD 


c 


> 


S 


L 


ro 




CD 


CD 


s_ 


CO 


to 


d) 


CO 




£ 


CD 


l_ 


4-J 


U 




L, 


CD 


ro 


3 


C 


a 


LL 




CD 




4-4 


a: 




O 
C 


i 


(5 


<*- 


> 


5 


I 


L. 




i 


C 


X) 


> 


0) 




i_ 


I 


'5 


CO 


o 


n 


10 


2 


gj 


CD 




s_ 


u 


4-> 




CD 


o 

LL 


"a 
c 

ID 


C 
CO 


I 


CD 


JZ 


CM 


— • 


o 




c 


ro 


OJ 


TO 


O 


10 


E 

to 


L. 


ro 


a 


-C 




a 



'5 
cr| 

UJ 



c 



a Q (d 





> > U_ 
UU00 


> 

u 




LD 

CD O 

• 00 

CD CO 


o 
o 


^3" 


en 




o 

ID 


o 

o 

LD 


00 


ro 


«* 


<3" 






> 

U 




> 
u 




LD 
CD 




CD 
ID 




00 
CD 


00 


CD 




- 




CM 


oo 


O 
LD 
CM 




> 

u 

LD 
00 


LL 
CO 

CD 

LD 


> 

u 

00 


CD 



o 
co 

LD 



CD CD 

cd r^ 



CM 



Li- 
en 

o 

CD 



> > 

u u 



> 



00 CD U- , 
00 00 (/) (J 

TCOOCD 
ID CO O CD 

oo r-- cd r-» 
t- r- *» 



CD 
U 

a 

CD 

i_ 

C 



n 

CD 

s_ 

TJ 

C 
T3 



0) 

c 

4J 

0) 



u 

CD 
00 

CD 
00 



a. 

ro 0)j= 

s_ C co 



OJ 



C <D 
ro co 



l/l 



CD OJ CD 



_j c 

CD O 

S- > 



cd ro 



ul 



X3 a 



V 



* ^i — = > 

oacDO^^-aO-^ 
EtcdE>uoEu 

<D£<DxOOJ01 
CC (/) Q UJ ~$. CU OQ 



- o, T3 c °- CD 



c 

cu 
u 
c 

OJ 

a 



c 

CD 

u 

i_ 

CD 



o <-> 



m 



(D O c ~ C h 
+-. ,g ro 0- .= Q. 

El 



o 

h- 



LD "O 

ro ±; -m ^- c 

^Z C ro 

CO r- CO O CO 

D •- D U D O 



171 



o o 
o o 


o o 
o o 


o 
o 


o 

CD 


00 


CD 
CD 


o o 
00 o 
O i- 


^ r- 
r-* r- 


CD 

en 

o 


00 


T — 


UO 


Si s 


•k 


*. 


*» 


«* 


v 


ro •^r 


iD 


00 
CM 


uo 

CM 


CD 

00 


00 
00 



CM 



LD 



■fcA- 



u u 



U 



LD 




00 




CD 




ID 




+ 




CO 




00 




1 




r- 




oo 




o 




+ 




ro 




00 




L0 




c 





o 


X 


*4-> 
to 


5 


— > 


to 


in 


L0 


1 


C 


~TO 


T5 


5 

CD 


O 

> 


10 


— 


L. 


TO 


TO 





a 


~ 


0! 


— 


DC 


I 


i 


10 




CD 


>- 


c 


L. 


o 


C 


4-" 


0) 


m 


I 




(J 





5 


c 




L0 


4-1 


LO 



o E 



en 


QJ 




U 


CD 


TO 


lO 




TO 


a 


r 


OJ 


a 


q: 



en 



c 

TO 
3 

o- 



o o 
o uo 



O CM 
CD O 



CD 
00 



O 
O 



LD 





LL LL 


TO 


U U 


L 

CD 


O O 
O ID 


TO 


o r>» 
cd CD 



LL LL 

u u 



LD 
CD 



OO 






U 

o 

00 

OvJ 



U U 



CO o o o 

r- ^ O ID 

cm ^r 



L0 



to 

"O 
O) c 

C TO O) 

o > - 



L0 <J 



QJ 

c 

QJ 0J QJ 
Z Z L0 



c 




c 




c 




QJ 




u 




c 




U 




u 




u 




!_ 




L 




S_ 




a) 
a 


C 
O 


I 

a 




0) 

a 


a 


o 


~-> 


LO 




Lf) 


•a 


c~ 


- 


< — 


4J 


• — 


c 




— 




c 




m 


LO 


c 


L0 


o 


1/1 




3 




J 


u 


r 


o 



o _ _ _ 



172 



ILLUSTRATIONS 



173 



Figure 1: Soil flushed out from behind wall and resulting void 



174 




175 



Figure 2: Capstone displaced and toppled into harbor 



176 




... 

• ■ " • .0 ...' 



177 



Figure 3: Section of wall if protrusion is the historic configuration 



178 




J 



179 



Figure 4: Lower third of wall displaced due to force 
created by water and plastic soil behind wall 



180 




■ « . I'.. I 



181 



Figure 5: Rehabilitated wall section (typ.) 



182 



EPOXY MORTAR 



FILTER FABRIC — 



CRUSHED STONE — 



- GROUT 




183 



Photograph 1: Station 11 + 97.05 looking south capstones 
displaced due to loss of soil 



Photograph 2: Detail of void behind wall 



184 



•If 




W 




185 



Photograph 3: Displaced capstone toppled into harbor 



186 



9 



m 

~<<*i * 



^S 




187 



Photograph 4: Station 13 + 17.05 - Station 13 + 84.05 
Unraveled section of wall 



188 



« ..— 




189 



Photograph 5: Station 18 + 00. Protruding lower third of wall 



190 




191 



Photograph 6: Station 16 + 39.04 looking south 
Protruding lower third of wall 



92 




193 



Photograph 7: Station 18 + 00 looking south 
Protruding lower third of wall 



194 




195 



APPENDIX A: ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMENTS 



This amendment to the report is a result of the archeological 
investigations conducted at the seawalls of Fort McHenry. Based on these 
findings, the seawall is sound of structural stability and not in imminent 
danger of collapse. The 'step' as viewed in three photographs (photos 
5-7) can be viewed as either a cultural feature of the wall or an evidence 
of wall repair that took place above the 'step'. No repairs as described 
for Phase II (dismantling and rebuilding) are needed for this section of 
the seawalls. 



197 




United States Department of the Interior 

DENVER SERVICE CENTER - EASTERN TEAM 
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 
WASHINGTON, DC. 2024O 



H3015(DSC-TEA) 
FOMC-149 



Jut, 02 m 



Memorandum 
To: 
From: 
Reference: 

Subject: 



Chief, Falls Church Branch, Eastern Team, DSC 

Chief, Applied Archeology Center, DSC-TEA 

Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, 
Package No. 149; Rehabilitate 4,000 foot Historic 
Seawall, Historic Structure Report 

Distribution of Management Report 



Enclosed for your information and records is a copy of the Management 
Report for the referenced project. Additional copies are being sent to 
other DSC-TEA professionals concerned with the project. The purpose of 
this report is simply to document existing structural conditions for 
construction drawings and to provide information about the resources 
located along the seawall. Although further review of this report is not 
required or expected at this time, Ellen Seidel, NPS Staff Archeologist, 
would welcome any comments you may have. 



(SI3N1DJ 



^ 



Douglas C. Comer 
Enclosure 



cc: 

DSC-^TEA-Mr . 
IDSC-TEA-Mr. 



Raithel 
Cellar 



DSC-TEA-Mr . 
DSC-TEA-Mr. 
DSC-EAF-Mr . 
DSC-EAF-Mr. 



Witmer 
LaFleur 
Fields 
Donald 



198 



ARCHEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT REPORT 

FORT MCHENRY NATIONAL MONUMENT AND HISTORIC SHRINE 

Spring, 1986, Season 

1. Package Identification 

Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine, Package No. 149; 
Rehabilitate 4,000 foot Historic Seawall, Historic Structure Report. 

2. Construction Location and Description 

Construction locations are identified by station number (Figure 1), as 
listed below. 

Sta. No. Proposed Construction 

10+00-22+34.09 Excavate trench behind seawall 

1 to 6 feet wide to base of wall, 

line trench with filter cloth, backfill 

with stone 

Fill voids in wall 

Pin stones in place 
22+84.09-32+03.74 No work 

32+03.74-38+59.35 Fill voids in wall 

38+59. 35-park boundary No work 



3. Dates of Archeological Investigations 

March 24-26, April 7-May 2, 1986: Fieldwork 
May 5-May 23, 1986: Labwork, report preparation 

4. Personnel 

Project Archeologist, NPS: Ellen Seidel 
Field Director, CPSUA: Paula Zitzler 

Crew, CPSUA: William Batterman, Kim Becker, Heather Bouslog, 
Karen Orrence 

5. Purpose and Location of Archeological Investigations 

Excavation units were located to obtain both archeological and 
architectural data, specifically, 1) to determine if the existing shape of 



199 



the seawall is as originally constructed/repaired or if the wall is 
presently being deformed by natural causes, and 2) to determine the 
presence/absence of significant archeological deposits adjacent to the 
seawall. 

Prior to initiating fieldwork, an examination of a sample of historic maps 
suggested that several historic features may be present along the seawall, 
as summarized below. The test excavations were located to test both 
architectural and non-architectural areas along the impacted portions of 
the seawall. 



Sta. No.* 



Historic Data 



Archeological Investigation 



10+00 

11+97 
15+25 

21+08 

22+03 

22+84 

27+44 

32+03 



Wharf (1834) 



Wharf (1888) 

Water battery, 
north end (1888) 

None (architectural 
test) 

None (architectural 
test) 

Water Battery, 
south end (1888) 

Unidentified 
structure (1888) 

Unidentified 
structure (1888); 
rifle range 
(1912) 



Not tested due to presence of 
subsurface utilities 

Excavation units 2, 3 

Excavation units 4, 5 

Backhoe trench 1 

Excavation unit 1 

Not tested 

No work area 

Excavation units 6, 7 



♦Approximate 

6. Results and Interpretations 

A. Architectural details of the seawall were uncovered in each test, as 
illustrated in Figure 2. These details indicate that the wall is not 
eroding but was built and repaired in the shape illustrated. 

B. The location of a historically documented structure was verified in 
Excavation Units 6 and 7 (Figure 3) . The structure was noted but not 
identified on the 1888 map, but in 1912 it was identified as the target 
area of the rifle range. 



200 



C. NO SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES were discovered in Excavation Units 1-5, and 
Backhoe Trench 1. 

D. Fill was observed at all tested locations. 

E. Base of the seawall was not reached in any excavation because of safety 
considerations and water table. 

7. Evaluation of Discovered Resources 

The IN SITU FEATURES UNCOVERED AT STATION 32+03 ARE SIGNIFICANT because 
they are documented historically and are the only tested location on the 
seawall where relatively undisturbed deposits exist. 

NO SIGNIFICANT ARCHEOL0GICAL RESOURCES WERE IDENTIFIED IN EXCAVATION UNITS 
1 THROUGH 5 AND BACKHOE TRENCH 1. It is obvious that these areas were 
extensively filled, and, while some of this filling was apparently done 
historically, the disturbed nature of these deposits makes them 
insignificant resources. 

8. Impact of Project on Resources 

Construction Phases I and II will destroy any resources within 6 feet of 
the seawall. Disturbance will be to the base of the wall, but 
archeological test excavations to date have been relatively shallow, only 
3-4 feet below the top of the wall. Therefore, FINAL EVALUATION OF THE 
IMPACT CAN ONLY BE FULLY ASSESSED AFTER MACHINE TESTING (tentatively 
scheduled for September 1986) , which will penetrate to the full depth of 
the base of the seawall. 

Construction Phase III will not impact the significant resources discovered 
near station number 32+03, as long as work is confined to the exposed face 
of the seawall. If Phase III involves any excavation behind the seawall, 
the significant resources will be adversely impacted. 

9. Recommendat ions 

A. Clearance is not recommended for Phase I and II construction until the 
results of machine-testing in September 1986 are known. 

B. Qualified clearance is recommended for Phase III construction, even 
though significant resources are present. As long as construction 
activities are limited to the exposed face of the seawall, the significant 
resources will not be adversely impacted. However, if construction will 
involve excavation behind the seawall, or if heavy equipment will be 
operating at ground surface near the significant resources, these resources 
will be adversely impacted and an appropriate data recovery program must be 
implemented. 

C. Machine-testing in September should be conducted as often as possible 
during low tide, to insure that maximum depth can be reached behind the 
seawall without inundation. 



201 



Prepared by: 



Paula Zitzler Ellen Seidel 

CPSUA NPS 



202 



ST* 10-00 



2«W si* ii*»7wO» 




.SI* U-3B03 



ST* l»-«8 77 



ST* 42-SS 13 



SI* 22-*« OS 



N 

o 



si* ?7-43 s; 



SI* 2B-S7 BO 



SI* 30 10 60 



St* 3203 74 



/ through 7- Efcovation units 
8- Backhoe Trench I 



Figure I. Location of archeological tests, Fort McHenry National Monument 
and Historic Shrine, Package No. 14 9. April 1986 



203 



1 



J 



\\ ^ v 



APPROX. STA. NO. I It 97 



r 






\ V V ^ ~ 



APPROX. STA. NO. 15+25 



Riprop 



o 







Cement 




I 2 feet 



TW^ 



APPROX. STA. NO. 22+03 



KEY 

Mort ar 

Base of 
excavation 




APPROX. STA. NO. 32-03 



Figure 2. Seawall cross-sections, Fort McHenry Notional Monument 
and Historic Shrine, Package 149. May 1986 



204 






o 

5: 



d 






< 
CO 






*a 






c 






c> 






^ 






c 






«i 




K 


6 

3 




•e 


C 




c 










5 




(0 


D 




V, 


C 






o 




c 






a 


o 




c 


J» 




Pi 








X 







* 


<o 


.* 


<o 


CO 


kl 


5 


0> 








c 






Si 


v. 


-K 




o 


c 


0. 


k 


5 



?ns 



INDIVIDUALS AND OFFICES CONSULTED 



*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District 

Clinton Anuszewski, Civil Engineer 

P.O. Box 1715 

Baltimore, MD 21203 

301-962-4315 

*U . S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District 

William Baldwin, Jr., Engineering Geologist 

P.O. Box 1715 

Baltimore, MD 21203 

301-962-4451 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Peter Hart, Engineering Geologist 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20314 
202-272-0207 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 
George Hubfer, Civil Engineer 
P.O. Box 1715 
Baltimore, MD 21203 
301-962-2002 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 
John Lockwood, Civil Engineer 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20314 
202-272-0228 

U. S. G. Construction 

Edward Mokelligett, Project Manager 

Billford, S. C. 

803-524-1672 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Dale Munger, Soil Engineer 
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20314 
202-272-0207 



* If further contacts need to be made with the U. S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, Clinton Anuszewski and William Baldwin are most knowledgeable 
about the seawall at Fort McHenry. They conducted a physical 
investigation of the site and were involved in the stabilization of the 
section of the Fort McHenry seawall that is the property of the Coast 
Guard. They were also involved in the stabilization of the seawall at Fort 
McNair which is a similar historic structure. 

207 



Department of Inspection in Hydrology License Administration 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
William Trautween, Engineering Geologist 
825 North Capitol Street, N. E. 
Washington, D. C. 20426 

Rummell Klepper & Kahl Consulting Engineers 
Edward Zigler, Civil Engineer 
1035 North Calvert Street 
Baltimore, MD 21202 



REFERENCES CONSULTED 



U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection . 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection 
Guide for Engineers and Contractors . 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection 
Guide for Local Government Officials 

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Low Cost Shore Protection 
Property Owner's Guide 



208 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFMl E I 186 0-676070/40002 



As the nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the 
Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our land and 
water, energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation 
areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The 
department also has major responsibility for American Indian reservation 
communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S. 
administration . 

Publication services were provided by the graphics staff of the Denver 
Service Center. NPS D20, August 1986